Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 13,024 results that match your search.13,024 results
  • Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertisements has recently been implemented in Ireland by the European Communities (Misleading and Comparative Marketing Communications) Regulations 2007 (the 2007 Regulations). The purpose of the 2007 Regulations is twofold: (1) to protect traders against misleading marketing communications and their often unjust effects; and (2) to specify the circumstances in which comparative marketing communications are prohibited. We shall focus here on the comparative marketing angle.
  • The end of the year 2007 saw a few interesting cases arise in French practice. Most of them related to internet situations but the classical comparison of signs has not been in rest.
  • In many inventions relating to telecommunications or computers, the underlying novel idea resides in the modification of a signal to achieve some useful purpose. An example can be found in US patent application 09/211,928, which relates to the introduction of watermarks into signals to help protect media against unauthorized copying. Consistent with the general desirability of protecting an invention in its most basic form without limitation to any specific apparatus or method of implementation, the applicants sought to protect their underlying invention in the form of a claim directed to a signal, wherein the body of the claim defined the novel and useful characteristics of the signal. The US Federal Circuit (In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ 2d 1495), with a dissenting opinion, held that such a claim was not a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter", as required by US law, and as such was non-statutory subject matter.
  • Caroline de Mareüil-Villette of Cabinet Plasseraud outlines how to determine the value of intellectual property and explains why companies should do it
  • The first high-speed railway constructed by Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation (THSRC) under the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model in Taiwan rolled into service in 2006. The high-speed train, called 700T in Taiwan, was built based upon the design of the locomotive used by the Japanese high-speed rail system, only with the stripes extending along both sides of the locomotive altered from pure blue to juxtaposed orange and black.
  • One of the most widely used instruments for the protection of intellectual property is the Paris Convention, which, is one of the oldest IP agreements (it was signed in Brussels on March 20 1883). This Convention brings together almost every country in the world and is used by many IP rights owners to get recognition of their rights in different countries from those where they were obtained or declared.
  • After years of public discussion and position papers, the Knesset – Israel's parliament – recently enacted the Copyright Act, 2007 (New Law), which will come into effect in May 2008. The New Law replaces the Copyright Act of 1911 that was passed by the British Parliament and made applicable to pre-state Israel during the British Mandate, as well as most of the provisions of the 1924 Copyright Ordinance (Old Law).
  • The digital twin spark plug ignition (DTS-i) technology debate between the motorcycle manufacturing giants Bajaj Auto and TVS Motors continues. The patent war has now reached the Supreme Court with Bajaj seeking a restraining order on the manufacturing and selling of the TVS two-wheeler Flame. Bajaj has sought a revocation of the Madras High Court order allowing TVS to go ahead with receiving bookings for and selling its new motorcycle.
  • Gérard Portal of Cabinet Beau De Lomenie reviews recent cases, looking at preliminary injunctions, seizure validity and infringement itself
  • On December 18 2007, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC) under presiding Judge Reynaldo Daway found Avida Land Corporation (Avida) guilty of patent infringement and ordered it to pay inventor Edgardo Vasquez and his company Vasquez Building Systems Corporation (VBSC), P96.5 million ($2.37 million) in temperate, moral, exemplary damages and attorney's fees.