Search results for

Litigants sparred in court over whether digital information constitutes an "article" within the scope of the ITC's jurisdiction, in the closely-watched ClearCorrect case involving teeth straighteners

We are hosting a webinar next month to introduce the research for, and answer your questions about, the next edition of Managing IP’s IP Stars

Managing IP’s annual North America Awards dinner was held in Washington, DC in March, and attended by guests from all over the US and Canada

When faced with a claim of trade mark infringement, a defendant might avoid or minimise liability if it can establish the equitable defence of acquiescence. A defensive claim of acquiescence may be available where the trade mark owner has affirmatively represented to the defendant that the mark at issue may be used and the defendant relies on that representation to its prejudice. In general, an acquiescence defence requires that a defendant satisfy three elements, namely: (1) it received assurances from the plaintiff that the defendant could use the mark; (2) it relied on such assurances; and (3) it would experience undue prejudice if it now had to cease use of the mark.

In Argentina, legislation that regulates the protection of test data (Law 24,766 Confidentiality Law, Executive Order 150/92) does not provide adequate test data protection to pharmaceutical specialities as required in Section 39.3 of the TRIPs Agreement, because it allows third-party reliance on information concerning the safety and efficacy of a product – reliance that is not authorised by the originator of the data.

The so-called trilogue comprising the European Parliament, Commission and Council have agreed a deal on EU trade mark reform. But with details still sketchy, Managing IP analyses what is clear and what is still to be revealed

In early 2015, Vietnamese authorities continued their stepped-up IP enforcement campaigns, showing a commitment to improve the IP situation against the backdrop of TPP and EU FTA negotiations. Notable cases included:

German Patent Law prohibits not only direct use of a patented invention, but also indirect use by delivery or offering for sale means relating to a substantial element of the invention, provided that the person making the delivery or offer knows, or it is obvious, that these means are both suitable and intended for use in practising the patented invention. This also applies to deliveries or offers imported to a customer in Germany.

Should we keep our work in-house, or outsource it to external providers?

A recent High Court decision in Malaysia reconfirms the incorporation of the passing off concept in refusing a trade mark registration under Section 14(1)(a) of the Trademarks Act (TMA). Section 14(1)(a) provides that a mark or part of a mark shall not be registered as a trade mark if "the use of which is likely to deceive or cause confusion to the public or would be contrary to law".