Search results for

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) established a search and examination department on May 28 2013 to support the soon to be implemented positive grant patent system and to further Singapore's aspiration to be an IP hub in the region. In the current self-assessment patent system, patent applications may proceed to grant based on a mixed or negative examination report.

At last it has happened. The organisation of an IP court in Russia was discussed for a number of years. Convincing arguments were put forward in favour. However despite the fact that no opposition was put forward, the process of taking decisions and actual organisation of the court was not hurried.

On June 5, the Supreme Court gave a decision (GR 185830) affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the right of Renaud Cointreau & Cie and Le Cordon Bleu International BV to register the mark Le Cordon Bleu & device cannot be barred by Ecole the Cuisine Manille Inc's prior use of the mark since 1948 in the Philippines, because Ecole's appropriation of the mark was made in bad faith.

Previously, the Dutch Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that the CJEU's Bericap ruling does not preclude reimbursement of litigation costs when invalidation proceedings are initiated in anticipation of expected (and also carried out) infringement proceedings (Case 200.094.921/01, February 26 2013). The Court of Appeal did not see why it would make any difference whether invalidation proceedings are started as a defence in response to infringement proceedings or as an advanced defence against expected infringement proceedings.

The Madrid Protocol came into force in New Zealand on December 10 2012 and since then a number of New Zealand businesses have taken advantage of this new means of protecting their trade marks offshore.

The Arab pharmaceutical market is reportedly valued at more than $12 billion and is growing at more than 10% a year, with around 450 manufacturers. With the exception of Egypt, all Arab countries are high importers of branded drugs, while local manufacturing capabilities are limited to generic and licensed drugs with very little research and development. Thus, it has become more important for trade mark owners to address the challenges of pharmaceutical trade mark protection, and to become more familiar with the requirements that are specific to this region.

A draft of Mexican Official Standard NOM-257-SSA1-2013 that will affect the way the procedures for obtaining marketing authorisations for medicaments are performed, as well as renewal and modifications of those authorisations, is under review.

With the coming into force of the amendments to the Industrial Designs Act on July 1 2013, a design must be new not only in Malaysia but in the world to be validly registered. Applications filed before July 1 but registered after July 1 will be subject to this international novelty requirement and it usually takes about nine months for an application to be registered. Another key amendment is the extension of the duration of design protection from 15 years to 25 years for all existing and new registrations in line with UK and EU design protection.

The expiry of blockbuster drug patents intensifies disputes between brand-name pharmaceutical companies and generic drug manufacturers. This case is one such dispute. In some cases, a brand-name pharmaceutical company restrains a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer from selling generic drugs based on combination patents after the single brand-name drug patent has expired.

On July 27, while upholding the validity of one patent (the '017 patent) granted to Glaxo Group Limited, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) revoked another (the '171 patent), for lack of inventive step and as being hit by Section 3(d). Both the patents relate to lapatinib and its compounds. Interestingly, both decisions rest on the adequacy of the pleadings and evidence on record – while in the first case the IPAB concluded that the petitioner who challenged the patent failed to satisfy his burden of proof, in the second case, it was the patentee who failed to satisfy his burden of proof.