Search results for

Chinese companies might be innovating more than ever, but last year the country paid almost $17 billion more in licence fees and royalties than it received. Slashing that deficit requires not only more inventions, but better licensing strategies

Advanced economies raising alarms over the state of IP protection in growing markets are nothing new, but what happens when the object of criticism is poised to become the world’s largest economy?

India’s accession means the Madrid Protocol now covers more than two-thirds of the world’s population. Is this the tipping-point for the international trade mark system, and what reforms are needed? Emma Barraclough, James Nurton and Alli Pyrah report

In a recent decision of the Austrian Supreme IP Tribunal, an Austrian audit company named Confida requested the cancellation of three younger trade marks, all including the word Confida and registered for services including auditing services and financial services in class 36. The cancellation action was based on the company name, as the company was registered in 1978 in the Austrian company register and the attacked marks were only registered in the 1990s and later. Likelihood of confusion between the opposing signs was not under dispute.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science, and Technology held several hearings between May 2012 and February 2013 to study the impact of the IP regime on innovation in Canada. A Report of the Committee was issued in March 2013.

Article 76(1) EPC states that a European divisional application shall be filed directly with the European Patent Office (EPO) in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. Rule 36(2) EPC specifies that the divisional application shall be filed with the EPO in Munich, The Hague or Berlin. The filing of a European divisional application with a national patent office is therefore not allowed by the EPC.

Recently, the ECJ had to decide on a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the term "genuine use" where a trade mark is only used as an element of a combination mark and in conjunction with another trade mark, and the combination of the two marks is also registered as a trade mark.

Arecent decision of the Single Member Court of First Instance ruled upon a main action regarding unauthorised parallel imports of spare parts and accessories for motorcycles.

The Copyright Amendment Act, 2012, which came into force on June 21 2012, introduced major changes in the Indian Copyright Law. Various production houses and music labels have challenged the constitutional validity of these amendments before the Delhi High Court, by different petitions.

Even a quick look at the figure indicates that damage awards in Japanese patent infringement litigations could multiply because of a recent IP High Court decision.