Search results for

Eight years ago, the Beijing High Court rejected Apple Inc's application for its bitten apple trade mark in class 25, due to a prior registered apple trade mark in the same class owned by a Chinese company, regardless of the high reputation of the opposed trade mark all over the world, including China.

On August 1 2012, the Administrative Measures for Prioritised Examination of Patent Applications for Inventions came into force, which will allow invention patent applications to be examined in an expedited manner. Under the Measures, the prioritised examination procedure will last less than a year and the first office action will be issued within 30 working days, from from the date on which the prioritised examination is granted.

Belgium has a useful tool against IP infringers: descriptive seizures. By means of an ex parte request to a competent Court of Commerce, IP owners can obtain allowance for such a seizure. The only evidence that is needed is a proof of existence of the IP right and some evidence that there is a prima facie suspicion of infringement. The court will in nearly all cases allow the descriptive seizure and then appoint an expert who – without any advance warning – will show up on the doorstep of the alleged infringer, accompanied by a bailiff and sometimes the police, with a court order granting him access to the premises for a description of products or manufacturing processes that may be present.

The Austrian Supreme IP Tribunal recently sent some questions to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in Luxemburg to clarify aspects of the requirements under which a trade mark becomes generic.

The Australian Patent Office has released new draft regulations directed at substantially curtailing response periods for patent prosecution and opposition.

In a December 2010/January 2011 briefing in Managing Intellectual Property we made reference to a judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals in Civil Matters, Division D, of August 2010, in relation to the liability of search engines regarding the content of websites published by third parties.

The term 'pro-drug' is used to describe a pharmacologically inactive form of a drug that becomes therapeutically active in the human or animal body. Metabolites are derivatives from the active ingredients that are produced in vivo. Pro-drugs and metabolites are thus interlinked. A pro-drug is generally designed to improve the physical and chemical properties of a parent drug to enable formulation development, improve delivery, and/or achieve targeting.

Norton Rose has hired IP litigator Huw Evans from Allen & Overy in London. Evans, who works predominantly on patent cases, will join Norton Rose as a partner in its dispute resolution practice. He is the third new partner to join the team since July 2012, following the appointments of Neil O'May and Liam O'Connell, who joined from Bindams and CMS Cameron McKenna respectively.

Just 16% of internet users would be put off if they received a letter informing them their account had been used to infringe copyright, according to a study commissioned by UK regulator Ofcom. The study was conducted by Kaspar Media and involved online and face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of 4400 people. It was financially supported by the UK IPO. The UK's Digital Economy Act provides for warning letters to be sent to internet subscribers who have downloaded illegal content. But its implementation has been delayed by legal challenges, and the first letters are not expected to be sent out until the middle of 2014 at the earliest.

US litigation being fought between two shoe makers could force brand owners to think twice about suing for trade mark infringement. After being sued by Nike for allegedly infringing its mark on a best-selling pair of trainers, sports manufacturer Already is urging the Supreme Court to let it pursue cancellation of the mark despite Nike's efforts to drop the case. If Already prevails, trade mark owners will no longer be able to automatically end litigation by signing a covenant promising not to sue their competitors. By signing the covenant, brand owners aim to strip the district court of jurisdiction over the infringer's declaratory judgment claim or counterclaim for cancellation of the mark.