Search results for

Biological resources can provide commercial opportunities but their importance for local communities must also be respected. Sunita K Sreedharan of Anand & Anand examines how India has reconciled conflicting demands in this area

In a landmark decision, Germany's Supreme Court has put the onus on online auctioneers to stop counterfeit goods being advertised. Henning Hartwig examines whether the ruling will be welcomed by trade mark owners

Comparative advertising is a useful tool for a company to stand out in an increasingly competitive market. Keshav S Dhakad and Vaishali Mittal of Anand & Anand examine the advantages and the pitfalls to look out for

The amendments to the Russian Patent Law were adopted on February 7 2003 and came into force on March 12 2003. The amendments brought the Russian Patent Law in alignment with the provisions of the TRIPs Agreement.The most important of them are the following.

Some months ago, we reported on Re Gilead Sciences, a UK Intellectual Property Office decision that provided guidance on when a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) can be granted in respect of a combination product. In particular, the decision provided guidance on when this type of medicinal product is "protected" by a basic patent in force, as is required by Article 3(a) of Council Regulation 1768/92, before an SPC can be granted. That decision has now been overturned in the High Court.

The year 2008 saw several developments in Vietnamese IP legislation that are expected to improve the country's enforcement regime. Notably, Vietnam finally issued long-awaited guidelines on handling IP crimes under Inter-Ministerial Circular no 01/TANDTC-VKSNDTC-BCA-BTP which was issued by the Supreme People's Court and other key agencies on February 29 2008.

This case relates to the opposition proceedings against application no 4-2006-003016 for the trade mark Dynaspec in the name of Kobelco Construction Machinery Co, Ltd, of Japan, covering goods in Class 7 such as power shovels, hydraulic excavators and other construction machines and apparatus. The opposition was filed by Dynapac International AB, of Malmo which owned the mark Dynapac for goods in classes 7 and 9, registered in the Philippines under trade mark registration no 029723 issued on August 4 1981 and renewed on August 6 2001, alleging confusing similarity.

Selma Toplu Ünlü and Özge Atilgan of Mehmet Gün & Partners outline the likelihood of confusion and the relevant public in the world of pharmaceutical trade marks

Riza Ferhan Cagirgan of Gur Law Firm discusses the development of IP litigation in a developing country

Aydin Deris and Okan Çan of Deris Patents and Trademark Agency and Deris Law Office outline Turkish trade mark rights enforcement procedure and recent legislative developments