Search results for

The Chamber of Patent Disputes recently examined a conflict involving a Russian food product and a French name. The conflict was over a trade mark application for the designation Версаль (a well-known Russian translation of the word Versaille) in the name of a Siberian dairy producer in the city of Irkutsk in respect of goods in class 30 ("dressings including mayonnaise"). The applicant for the trade mark is one of the leading producers of dairy products in Russia including mayonnaise under the name of Версаль (Versaille) the production of which started in 2003.

On September 8 2012, the Department of Justice (DoJ) published department circular 14 entitled Adopting Accreditation Guidelines for Alternative Dispute Resolution Provider Organizations and Training Standards for Alternative Dispute Resolution Practitioners. The DoJ has an attached agency called the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) which was established in December 2009 under department circular 98 when it issued the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the ADR Act 2004. The OADR has not been active since its creation, and it was only on August 17 2012 that DoJ Secretary Leila de Lima signed the accreditation guidelines in a forum organised for the event.

Passed by Congress on September 16 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) will usher in the biggest amendments to the US patent system in the past 60 years. One change for applicants filing under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is scheduled to take effect on September 16 2012.

Since the enforcement of TRIPs-compliant patent law in Pakistan – the Patents Ordinance 2000 – the Patent Office's approach towards determination of patentability of genetically modified plants or plant varieties has remained overly narrow and strict. According to the Patent Office, as plants are excluded generally from the scope of patentable inventions, the scope of exclusion extends to "transgenic plants and their parts".

Back on the government's agenda, and almost two and a half years after its first reading, the Patents Bill has ignited controversy and debate within New Zealand's technology industry.

Following the practice of speedy proceedings and decisions in IP cases before the Dutch courts at first instance, the Court of Appeal in The Hague has recently announced that from September 1 2012 they will introduce a shortened procedure as alternative to the normal appeal. One of the prerequisites in such a procedure is that both parties agree to it and stick to its indicated timelines.

Usually when our Trademark Office issues a registration certificate containing an error, the mistake can be amended by filing a brief requesting the correction enclosing the original certificate and the filing application. But when the mistake is committed by the applicant it is a completely different story.

To tighten trade mark enforcement, Malaysia passed the Trade Descriptions Act (TDA) in 2011. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit false trade descriptions and false or misleading statements, conduct and practices in goods and services, thereby protecting the interests of consumers.

On August 21 2012, in the case of India TV v Yashraj Films, the Delhi High Court applied the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex to determine that there was no copyright infringement. The issue was whether the usage of a few words from a song of a Bollywood movie amounted to copyright infringement and an argument raised before the court was that the amount of use, if at all, was de minimis. The court, after providing a detailed analysis of the various possibilities of using the de minimis doctrine, concluded that the doctrine can be used as an independent defence in copyright infringement cases. The following five factors are relevant in applying this doctrine: (i) the size and type of the harm, (ii) the cost of adjudication, (iii) the purpose of the violated legal obligation, (iv) the effect on the legal rights of third parties, and (v) the intent of the wrongdoer.

Many countries impose restrictions on the filing of patent applications abroad. In certain cases, such restrictions only relate to inventions of a military interest, while in others, restrictions apply to any invention.