Search results for

Where a well-known trade mark is used by more than one party or the user of a well-known trade mark is different from the registrant, a conflict of interests may arise between the parties involved and may hinder consumer welfare or sound transactions. Even if the trade mark in question is not well-known, there are certain cases where trying to resolve the dispute over the trade mark by sticking to literal interpretations of statutes may lead to an unreasonable conclusion. In such events, the principle of good faith may be applicable.

Singapore is moving to a positive-grant patent system with amendments to the Singapore Patents Act and Rules coming into force on February 14 2014. The amendments will affect all Singapore patent applications lodged in Singapore on or after this date.

On November 20 2013, in a case involving the trade mark Birkenstock between Birkenstock Orthopaedie Gmbh & Co, KG and Philippine Shoe Expo (PSE) (GR no 194307), the Philippines Supreme Court ruled that Birkenstock is the true and lawful owner of the mark Birkenstock and that PSE was in bad faith in having an identical mark registered in its name. The Court approved the conclusion of the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) who stated that the mark Birkenstock is obviously of German origin and is a highly distinct and arbitrary mark, and that it is very remote and incredible that two persons could coin the same or identical mark for use in the same line of business without any plausible explanation from PSE.

In December 2013, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) issued a discussion paper seeking feedback on proposed regulations and fee changes. Submissions were required by January 24 2014.

To understand the application and scope in our legal system of the exhaustion of rights doctrine it is necessary to know what it means. So, we must understand that the exhaustion of rights is a limitation on IP rights, which results in the loss of these exclusive rights granted to the titleholder over some product covered by an IP right, when such product has been lawfully introduced to the market by him or with his consent.

In Japan, there is a patent term extension system as in the US and Europe. In Japan, judgments of IP High Court and Supreme Court have been rendered and overturned the former practice. As a result of these judgments, the JPO's Examination Guidelines have been revised and the patent term extension system is facing a large turning point. Here we introduce the new patent term extension system in Japan.

The protection of well-known trade marks in Indonesia is regulated by Article 4, Article 6 paragraph (1.b) and Article 6 paragraph (2) of the Trade Mark Law No 15 of 2001. According to Article 4, a trade mark shall not be registered on an application made by an applicant with bad faith. Meanwhile, Article 6 paragraph (1.b) states that an application shall be rejected by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights of Indonesia if the trade mark is similar in principle or in its entirety to an already well-known trade mark owned by another party for goods and/or services of the same type. The rejection of an application whose similarity in principle or in entirety to a well-known trade mark for goods and/or services of the same type is determined by observing the public's general knowledge of the trade mark in the particular business sector. In addition, it is necessary to observe the reputation of the well-known trade mark which can be achieved through intensive and extensive promotions and investments in a number of countries by its owner, and also evidenced by the trade mark registration in several countries.

All patent laws of major countries and regions of the world have set forth explicit requirements regarding the disclosure of the patent, which require that the specification in every patent application must disclose the invention clearly and completely enough for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art. This is one of the basic characteristics of the modern patent system and ensures that the public can finally benefit from granting the patentee a limited time of monopoly right.

Supreme Court decisions on the infringement of design rights are rare in Austria. In a recent case, the holder of a registered design setting out a grave light with a heart-shaped feature on its front sued a competitor for marketing an allegedly infringing product.

Many international trade mark owners face problems when designating the United States. Michael Leonard and Edward Brant explain how you can overcome them