Search results for

A mark can be registered as long as it meets the requirement of "distinctive capacity". This concept has two components: (1) the intrinsic identifying capacity, which refers to the identifying ability of the sign considered in itself, independent of all others (principle of originality); and (2) the extrinsic identifying capacity, understood as the suitability of a sign to be registered for being different from others already existing (principle of novelty).

An inventor (the plaintiff) has concluded a contract with a firm (the defendant) to market together his invented product under his trade mark. The contract was concluded for an unlimited period without clauses for termination. The firm made substantial investment in tests and development of prototypes to make the product fit for the market. But after some time the inventor sent a termination letter and finally sued the firm for trade mark infringement as the firm continued using the trade mark for marketing that product. The question was whether such termination withdrawing the consent to trade mark use is possible and is valid or – as the firm stated – is disproportional and a misuse of law in view of the high investment not yet regained.

The trade mark system in Mexico faces several problems because there are numerous trade mark registrations in the Registry that were granted to identify a lot of products and/or services within one class. In commercial practice these trade marks are not used to identify each and every product and/or service protected, but only to identify one or some of them.

Every once in a while the question whether there is copyright on patent documents surfaces. For the Netherlands this question has now been answered. In a monograph, published at the request of the Dutch Association of Patent Attorneys, Professor Quaedvlieg (University of Nijmegen) has delved extensively into this subject.

Based on EU trade mark law, a trade mark registration can be revoked if it has become a common indication as a result of acts or omissions by the trade mark owner. In a recent ruling of the Court of First Instance of the EU Court of Justice, an interesting position was taken regarding trade marks that have become common names. The court ruled that the perception of the end users is the only relevant criterion. Additionally, "omission" is also understood as the omission by the trade mark owner to encourage sellers to make more use of the mark in marketing the respective products.

"AMICO" Cjsc filed a trade mark application for a figurative designation comprising two wide intersecting lines of a red colour for goods in class 10, and services in classes 35, 37,42 and 44. Inside each line there were intersecting ovals of white colour shaped as stylised satellites orbits. The protection was sought in red and white.

The Portuguese PTMO has published on its website a notice concerning a change in the proceedings related to the transfer of ownership of supplementary protection certificates (SPCs).

Human beings from time to time make errors and that is why most of patent laws have a provision for restitutio in integrum. The Belgian patent law only had previously a provision for re-establishing a patent in case of non-payment within the time limit of a renewal fee. The provision for re-establishment of right provided further only a two-month period for requesting re-instatement, from expiration of the grace period. This was clearly not a real re-establishment of right since the loss of right is rarely discovered at that time!

SIPO released the final version of the amended Patent Examination Guidelines with respect to graphical user interfaces (GUIs) on March 12 2014. The new version of the PEG, which will come into effect on May 1 2014, recognises the patentability of GUI for the first time in China's 30-year patent law history.

The scenario is by now all too common: