Search results for

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has issued a judgment holding two Swiss trade mark registrations for the word-mark You invalid on the grounds that the word You must remain free for use in commerce.

Tablet computers are now popular everywhere. It is clear that they have the same outward appearance and cannot be otherwise. Nevertheless, Apple filed for a 3D trade mark reproducing the shape of IPad in Russia. The application was filed claiming priority of 2010 in respect of goods in Class 9.

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 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.

The Australian Council of Intellectual Property (ACIP) has announced another review of the innovation patents system. This review will again look at options in dealing with the innovation patents system, where issues, including the granting of patents that lack of an inventive step test (so they are otherwise obvious), has led to substantial frictions in trade and commerce.

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.

In accordance with Indonesian Patent Law 14 of 2001, Article 54, the Directorate General must approve or refuse an application for a patent, at the latest 36 months from the date of receipt of the request for substantive examination and at the latest 24 months from the filing date for a simple patent.

Just as trade mark filings and registrations have seen a remarkable rise in the Near East over the past 10 to 20 years, we are now witnessing a similar phenomenon with patents. This rise in filings is driven by the need for protection in new emerging markets as well as an improved IP rights and enforcement environment. One country in the region that stands out is Saudi Arabia. In 2013, two major patent-related events have attested to Saudi's commitment to ensuring accessible and robust IP.

Under Taiwan's patent practice, patent applications become publicly available for inspection after they are laid-open or published. However, someone wishing to obtain a copy of the entire file wrapper of a laid-open or published application needs to place an order with the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office and potentially wait a while for it to arrive.

Three years after entry into force of the strongly criticised rules for filing divisional applications, which set a two-year time limit from the examining division's first communication or from an objection for lack of unity, the EPO has now decided to abolish the system and revert to the old regime. More specifically, the Administrative Council of the EPO has amended rule 36 EPC to allow the filing of divisional applications as long as the earlier (parent) application is pending. In this regard, it has also been decided to establish an additional fee in relation to the filing of second or subsequent generations of divisionals by amendment of rule 38 EPC. The amount payable in this respect is still to be determined.