Search results for

Over the past three years, Turkish national registrations from international trade mark applications under the Madrid Protocol have increased by 30%, reaching 7,750 in 2005.

In view of the changes in the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) that will come into force on April 1 2007, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore recently issued a consultation paper which proposed concurrent changes to the Singapore Patents Act and Rules on April 1 2007 to align with the changes in the PCT. In addition, there is a repeal of provisions in the Singapore Patents Act dealing with restrictive covenants.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) has sent some shock waves among IP lawyers in the Philippines. On June 4 2001, In-N-Out Burger Inc, a US corporation, filed an administrative complaint for unfair competition with damages before the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPPhil) against Sehwani Inc, owner of the Philippine registered trade mark In N Out, and its licensee Benita's Frites. On December 22 2003, the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), the adjudicating body of IPPhil, issued a decision, which declared In-N-Out an internationally well-known mark owned by In-N-Out Burger. It cancelled the registration of Sehwani for the identical trade mark but held that there was no unfair competition. The Court agreed that Sehwani had used the mark in good faith and so denied the claim for damages. Both parties appealed the decision to the Director General of IPPhil, who modified the decision of the BLA by declaring the existence of unfair competition, and awarding damages of P1.2 million ($24,000) to In-N-Out Burger Inc.

On July 21 2006 the Polish Parliament was served with a proposal of changes to the Law on Industrial Property. The proposed changes refer to several aspects of IP protection in Poland, including procedural regulations regarding litigation proceedings before the Polish Patent Office. The potential implementation of the proposed changes will have a significant impact on the regulations concerning the provision of evidence in litigation proceedings before the Patent Office.

In Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co KG v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) the European Court of First Instance (CFI) confirmed OHIM´s ruling denying a likelihood of confusion between the pets marks Vitakraft and Vitacoat.

Auckland's refurbished Eden Park will host games in 2011 New Zealand has become the latest country to propose special protection against the threat of ambush marketing at major sports events.

James Nurton, London

The law requires the use of a registered trade mark in Ukraine. To maintain a registration, a trade mark must be used in respect of the goods and/or services for which it has been registered. The definition of the effective use of a trade mark has been detailed to comprise sale, offering for sale, import and export of the goods bearing a trade mark. Otherwise the registration becomes vulnerable to cancellation upon request by a third party.

In the previous issue of Managing Intellectual Property, the implementation of the Bolar exemption in Ireland was discussed. It was stated that the exemption in Ireland only applies to experimental activities for generic drugs, excluding new medicinal products.

Artists' resale right schemes, often also called droit de suite, have been a part of the law of a number of European countries since the 1920s. However, the disparity between those national systems that did recognize a resale right and the lack of a resale right in other member states prompted the European Commission to adopt harmonizing measures in the form of EU Directive 2001/84/EC on the resale rights of authors of original works of art. The object of the Directive is to confer the same benefits on authors/creators of graphic or plastic art, such as pictures, collages, paintings, sculptures and engravings, as other creators of artistic works who benefit from successive exploitations of their works. The Directive was passed on September 27 2001 and member states had until January 1 2006 to transpose it into domestic law.