Search results for

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has issued new guidance on the patentability of computer programs. This follows the Court of Appeal's rejection of the UKIPO's appeal in the recent Symbian case and confirmation that there will be no further appeal to the House of Lords. The key statement in the new guidance is that the Symbian case confirms "that the Aerotel/Macrossan test is intended to be in substance the same test as that relied on in the prior UK case law". Previously, the UKIPO had taken what was arguably a more restrictive approach to the application of the Aerotel test in that identification of a "technical contribution" was treated as only a check to confirm that a computer-implemented invention was patentable once it had passed the other stages of the assessment set out in the Aerotel case (see UKIPO Practice Notice dated November 2 2006).

Parallel imports have been a burning issue for Russian importers for the past year. At different times in the past, several laws were adopted (Trade Mark Law, Code of Administrative Offences, Customs Code) that completed the legislative structure dealing with parallel imports. And Russian Customs, pressed by the government for better enforcement at the border, became exceptionally active in identifying parallel goods. So, the beginning of last year saw an avalanche of inquiries from Customs asking trade mark owners for their opinion with regard to parallel import consignments.

A recent case at the Delhi High Court has dealt with the overlap between copyright and design protection and its application to the fashion industry in India. The questions addressed by the case were, firstly, whether drawings or sketches are artistic works and, secondly, whether the object or commercial intention be tested while applying Section 15 of the Copyright Act 1957, which bars copyright protection in drawings which are repeated more than fifty times.

The Netherlands Patent Office has pioneered the concept of non-examined patents. James Nurton spoke to its president, Guus Broesterhuizen, about SMEs, reform in Europe and the proposals for a Community patent

What is the ideal way to resolve a dispute? For IP owners, the answers may vary, but words that often come up include: quick, non-disclosed, amicable and cost-effective.

In principle, a case record (including briefs and evidence submitted by either party) of a Japanese court is publicly available. However, upon request from a party alleging that the record contains a trade secret, a court may issue: an order to restrict third party inspection of a case record and/or an order to require the addressee, such as counsels and employees of the other party, to maintain confidentiality. Recently, the IP High Court and the Supreme Court decided on the issues relating to these orders.

Owners of trade marks face a difficult choice when they learn that their products have been counterfeited and are being sold in Malaysia.

Within a very short period of time, the ECJ had to answer two questions from the Austrian Oberster Patent- und Markensenat for a preliminary ruling. Both questions concerned Article 12 of the Trade Mark Directive, that is the genuine use of a trade mark, and in both cases the trade marks were used without gaining any profit by the trade mark owner. So one could assume that the answer to both questions should be similar – not at all!

The Full Federal Court has rebuffed an attempt to appropriate the international reputation of the Monster Energy brand drink in Australia in Hansen Beverage Company v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 181.

On January 19 2009, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in case no GR 175769-70 denying the petition of ABS-CBN Corporation, which accused Philippine Multi-Media System Inc (PMSI) of violating its broadcasting rights and copyright. This case arose from a 2002 administrative complaint filed with the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPhil) by ABS-CBN, the Philippines' top broadcasting company, against PMSI, a provider of a direct-to-home television services using satellite, alleging that PMSI's unauthorised rebroadcasting of ABS-CBN's Channels 2 and 23 infringed on its broadcasting rights and copyright. ABS-CBN anchored its complaint on Sections 211 and 177 of the IP Code, which provides that broadcasting organisations shall enjoy the exclusive right to carry out, authorise or prevent the rebroadcasting of their broadcasts, and copyright or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to carry out, authorise or prevent the public performance of the work, and other communication to the public of the work.