Search results for

In a significant step towards a single New Zealand / Australian patent, the New Zealand government has recently approved the single application and examination process for New Zealand and Australian patent applications.

The Korean Supreme Court recently issued an en banc decision on the issue of whether a mark that comprises both an English word and its Korean transliteration would be considered identical to a mark that is comprised solely of an English word (Supreme Court Case No 2012 HU 2463, September 26 2013).

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice underscores the importance of drafting clear and unambiguous terms in settlement agreements.

The way in which the European Patent Office acts in the case of a lack of unity during the search procedure has recently been re-assessed. The problem which gave rise to the change is best illustrated by an example:

The Mexican IP Law (IPL) entitles third parties with an interest to seek the cancellation of trade mark registrations on the basis of non use, when they are abandoned within a period of three years before the submission of the cancellation claim.

Google is at the heart of the debate on patent reform in the United States. Last month, James Nurton spoke to the company’s deputy general counsel, patents and patent litigation, Allen Lo, about how its patent strategy has evolved, why it believes there is a troll problem, and what legal changes are needed

Foreign businesses that want to transfer their technology to China must weigh the costs and benefits of doing so. While the rules can be onerous, there still can be upsides, says Troy Rice

On February 8 2010, the mark Juicy Love was published for opposition in the E-Gazette of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL). Juicy Couture and LC Licensing of the United States filed a motion for extension of time to file a verified opposition on March 9 2010, and subsequently filed two more extensions of 30 days each as allowed by the inter partes rules then in force. Finally, on the last day, June 8 2010, Juicy Couture filed its verified opposition, but failed to pay the filing fees. Henc the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) dismissed the opposition citing as basis Section 7.2 of the rules, which provides that the prescribed fees shall be paid upon the filing of the opposition; otherwise, the opposition shall be considered as not filed. Juicy Couture filed a motion for reconsideration, and also paid the filing fees which it claimed it had inadvertently overlooked. The Director denied the motion for reconsideration.

The risk of genericism is a real one for many trade mark owners. John Wilks and Kate Oldroyd explain what you can do to avoid it

US trade mark law allows for the filing of a trade mark application based on a bona fide intention to use the mark on or in connection with the specified goods or services listed in the application. The filing of an intent-to-use-based application provides a significant benefit to trade mark owners as it allows them to obtain a priority date as of the date of filing while they develop their business under such mark. This can protect the owner from the subsequent adoption of a confusingly similar mark by a third party during the time period between when the owner has filed its application and when it has put the mark into use. The ability to file an application on an intent-to-use basis can, therefore, be crucial to the development of a brand owner's business.