Search results for

After undergoing three readings by the Legislative Yuan, the new amendment to Taiwan's Patent Law was passed on May 31 2013, and took effect since June 13. The key changes are as follows:

An absolute right to a reply derives from Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as on the Swiss Federal Constitution. The Swiss Federal Court has confirmed that in view of the principle of fair trial in the ECHR and the Swiss Constitution, parties have the right to be heard with regard to all writs of the opposing party.

Under Article 2(1)(a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, an "act of causing confusion with another's goods by using a designation identical or similar to another's name, trade name, trade mark, design of packaging or containers, or any other designation used by another as an indication of goods, which are widely known in Korea, or by selling, distributing, importing or exporting goods with any of those designations" is included in an "act of unfair competition" which is subject to civil and criminal liabilities. A classic example of an "act of causing confusion with another's goods" under Article 2(1)(a) of the Act is an act of selling counterfeit designer products.

As of September 1 2013, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has commenced a patent prosecution highway (PPH) pilot programme with the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China (SIPO). This will allow both offices to share their search and examination results, avoiding the need for duplicate examination work and providing a speedier route to grant.

In Russia, the common expression "Drink less" pronounced with a reproachful intonation is not just a word combination but a popular saying. It has a humorous and piquant connotation directed to a friend meaning that he perhaps has drunk enough. Russia is by no means the only country where allusions to drinking alcohol are popular. There are many sayings in English, such as "drink less for more success; drink less, miss less; more drinking, less thinking". However these sayings are more didactic than humorous, which distinguishes them from the Russian expression.

Does an entity duly licensed to engage in the business of refilling, buying, selling, distributing and marketing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) commit trade mark infringement when it refills containers bearing the registered marks of another entity without the latter's consent? Yes, said the Supreme Court of the Philippines in its decision issued on June 17 2013 in the case of Republic Gas Corporation et al, v Shell International et al (GR No 194062).

Patent legislative reform is not often a media darling. However, New Zealand's treatment of computer-implemented inventions has got to be the closest there is. Despite conflicting opinions on the issue, one simple fact remains. New Zealand will continue to grant patents for inventions that make use of or involve a computer program.

The UAE has recently grown increasingly important as a consumer market, becoming a major hub for regional trade. With a developing economy comes the apparent increase both in the volume and types of counterfeit and infringing products trafficked into and from or through the country. However, brand owners have the option to enforce their rights by taking the necessary measures based on the applicable laws and regulations.

In recent ruling relating to the legal effect granted to coexistence agreements, the Mexican Supreme Court has confirmed the National IP Office (IMPI) criterion determining that they cannot have legal effects in order to allow coexistence of marks held to be confusingly similar, no matter whether the concerned trade mark owners are sister or related corporate persons.

The recent decision of the Federal Court in the case of Tio Chee Hing v United Overseas Bank (M) Bhd [2013] 3 MLJ 212appears to have set out the position that decisions of the High Court in appeals on decisions of the Registrar of Trade Marks are only subject to one level of appeal and that is to the Court of Appeal. There is therefore no possibility of a further appeal to the Federal Court.