Search results for

The State Council respectively approved The Copyright Law Implementing Regulations and the Trade Mark Law Implementing Regulations on August 2 and 3 2002. Both will become effective on September 15 2002.

Rainer Hilli and Mikko Manner of Roschier Holmberg, Attorneys Ltd in Helsinki

Survival and success for biotech companies across the US and worldwide is a tenuous and arduous endeavor in today's economy. Robin Silva offers some tips on how to ride the wave successfully

Germán Marín Prior to Decision 486 of 2000, industrial property was protected in each of the member countries of the Andean Community (Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia) according to their internal laws. One of the main novelties of the new provision is the creation of a special juridical action for attacking infringement of patents, utility models, layout designs for integrated circuits, industrial designs, trade marks and trade names, which has been designated as Action for Infringement of Rights of Industrial Property.

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.

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.

In Intel Corporation Inc v CPM United Kingdom Limited [2007] EWCA Civ 431, two issues faced the Court of Appeal: (1) whether a mere "bringing to mind" of an earlier mark with a reputation is enough to prevent a later registration; and (2) whether it is an infringement of a registered mark which has a reputation if a defendant uses, for dissimilar goods or services, a mark which merely "brings to mind" the registered mark.

David Fleming explains that courts have highlighted aspects of surveys' design that determine their effectiveness

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.