Search results for

Although the Copyright Directive has come into force, it is only the first step in achieving harmonized copyright protection in the digital age, explains Anna Duffus

Injunctive relief in China: a judicial perspective Following the introduction of injunctive relief for IP disputes, Judge Lu Guoqiang of the Shanghai No 2 Intermediate People's Court explains the rules on injunctions and examines how the courts have implemented them in recent cases

The Napster battle revealed how vulnerable the music industry is to digital piracy, and the movie and TV industries could be next. Mark F Radcliffe and Jill Sazama examine the lessons learned from Napster and assess potential responses

Two ECJ decisions delivered on the same day last year address fundamental questions about the limits of legitimate trade mark protection. Justin Watts and Graeme Faeron introduce an overview of the impact the cases will have in different EU member states and at OHIM

The value of fake goods traded internationally could be as high as $200 billion according to a preliminary report published by the OECD on June 4

It is often asked whether it is necessary to register a trade mark in Cyrillic and Latin characters to avoid cancellation due to non-use in Russia. It is not without reason that usually a patent attorney recommends registration of both versions of the trade mark. However, it is possible sometimes to prove the use of a trade mark in Latin even though only its equivalent in Cyrillic is used.

The European Patent Office (EPO) published in the April 2007 issue of the Official Journal Board of Appeal decision T1020/03 in which a more liberal view of so-called Swiss-type claims (second medical use claims) is expressed.

Section 44(e) of the US Trade Mark Act affords a foreign trade mark owner the luxury of relying on a registration granted by the applicant's country of origin as a basis for registration in the United States. The Section 44(e) filing allows the applicant to secure a trade mark registration without demonstrating use of the mark in the United States, as all that is needed is an assertion of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.

In one of the most significant Australian decisions for many years on obviousness, the Australian High Court in Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 21 has increased the difficulty of striking down patents for obviousness.

Unlike some jurisdictions which allow any person to file a patent application, Canadian law provides that a patent application can only be made in the name of the inventor or a person who derives rights from the inventor. Until recently, the Patent Rules required that, in order to satisfy the Commissioner of Patents as to entitlement to file the application, the applicant was required to record evidence establishing a chain of title from the inventor. Under the new rules, effective June 2 2007, it is no longer necessary to record such evidence. The applicant is instead required to file a declaration setting forth the basis of its entitlement, normally within 15 months from the priority date or three months from the date of entry into the national phase. However, it is important to note that the underlying statutory requirements governing the entitlement to file a patent application have not changed. The changes in the rules relate to the requirements sufficient to satisfy the Commissioner to allow an application to proceed. Generally, it is still advisable at least to obtain a written assignment or other acknowledgement from the inventor that the applicant does indeed own the rights in the invention, and given the minimal cost, preferably to continue to record that document against the application order to minimize the risk of any future challenges to the ownership or validity of the resulting patent by ensuring that there is a clear chain of title from the original inventor to the current owner.