Search results for

In order to expedite the resolution of disputes over the registration and use of an internet domain name, Icann adopted the UDRP system. Under Paragraph 4 of the UDRP, a person who has legitimate interest in or right to a domain name may commence an administrative proceeding against the domain name holder for the cancellation or transfer of the domain name by submitting a complaint to one of the administrative-dispute-resolution service providers approved by Icann, which includes the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.

A recent decision (T-437/11 of September 16) by the General Court allowed Golden Balls to use his registration "Golden Balls", despite a long legal battle with Intra-Press, the owners of the "Ballon d'Or" trade mark.

The Calcutta High Court settled a long-standing dispute between Hindustan Unilever and Reckitt Benckiser on comparative advertisements for their products on September 23. The pertinent issue was whether the advertisements made by both parties fell foul of sections 29 and 30 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.

For an invention to be patentable, the invention must be novel and inventive. However, some countries provide grace periods so that disclosure of the invention within a specified period of time prior to the date of filing, subject to certain terms and conditions, is not regarded as destroying the novelty of the invention. In Malaysia, the grace period provisions can be found in section 14(3) of its Patents Act 1983.

Any human activity that causes damage creates the need to implement reparatory mechanisms. A party infringing a trade mark uses a good that does not belong to them and accomplishes this misappropriation to obtain a benefit.

Fashion companies often use their distinctive house marks in conjunction with multiple secondary marks to serve as a single source identifier for their product lines. The house mark groups the multiple different product offerings under the solitary heading of a well-known brand. The inclusion of the house mark could play a pivotal role in determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists between two otherwise similar marks.

In the June 2012 issue of Managing IP, we reported on a novel calculation of application fees at the German PTO. While there was some ambiguity in the wording of the new law on costs in patent affairs, the legislator has now confirmed in proposed amendments to the law that, upon nationalisation of a PCT application, based on the number of claims as originally filed, fees must be paid for each claim in excess of 10 claims (€20/€30 for electronic/paper filing). Thus, for applications with a high number of original claims, substantial additional fees must be paid with no option for reduction by reducing the number of claims upon entry into the German national phase.

In a recent ruling the Supreme Court of the Netherlands found that an appeal judge has the right to evaluate the evidence presented on appeal in a different and possibly even broader manner. This ruling resulted from a cassation brought by Global Bio Company – Chem Technology Group Lt et al (GBT) against rulings made by the Court of Appeal in The Hague.

In a recent decision, the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld a trial judge's decision to reject the evidence of an expert in a trade mark passing-off matter because the expert's report sought to describe the perception of a casual consumer. In doing so, the Court of Appeal affirmed the earlier decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Masterpiece v Alavida Lifestyles which held that expert evidence is not necessary where it just assesses resemblance between two trade marks by a casual consumer.

A recent decision by the French Supreme Court (June 11 2013) seems to open a strategy for trade mark owners that were victims of infringement and did not react in time.