Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 22,261 results that match your search.22,261 results
  • In the last year, Mexico has approved the Madrid Protocol, agreed to sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), introduced new data privacy laws and implemented guidelines on comparative advertising - to name just a few major IP changes. In addition, the country recently elected a new president, which means the head of the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (IMPI) will change, and there may be new approaches by the government on many issues that affect IP
  • IP owners looking to protect industrial designs in Mexico will be confronted with a messy mix of patent and copyright law. Luis Schmidt of Olivares explains
  • Despite a special mechanism in Mexican law to protect serial publications, Carlos Trujillo of Uhthoff Gomez Vega & Uhthoff asks whether using copyright and trade mark rights might be more effective
  • Laura Collada of Dumont considers the critical need for an effective opposition system as Mexico readies itself to accede to the Madrid Protocol
  • A Russian applicant, Guns Ltd, filed a trade mark application and obtained registration 442267 with priority of December 16 2010 for the mark below.
  • On September 12 2012 Philippine president Benigno S Aquino signed into law the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act 10175) which took effect on October 3 2012. The crimes covered by this Act are: (a) offences against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems, which include cybersquatting, (b) computer-related offences such as computer-related forgery, fraud and identity theft, (c) content-related offences such as cybersex, child pornography, unsolicited commercial communications and libel, and (c) other offences such as aiding and abetting in the commission of the cybercrime, and attempt in the commission of the cybercrime.
  • The patent prosecution highway (PPH) is a bilateral work-sharing programme designed to improve the efficiency of patent offices and reduce workload and application backlog. Specifically, the PPH allows an applicant to fast track an application in one patent office if at least one claim in a corresponding application has been deemed patentable by another patent office. Studies of the PPH have shown that participating applications have shorter pendency times and result in the grant of higher quality patents.
  • From the standpoint of patent laws, every patent application is allowed to cover one invention only or a group of inventions linked by a unifying underlying concept. For instance, a product and a process especially adapted for the manufacture of that product or a process and means for carrying out the process are widely accepted as constituting unity.
  • New Zealand brought its three-strikes law into force in September 2011 under the provisions of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act. The Act provides a mechanism for copyright owners to issue warnings, via ISPs, to internet account holders accused of illegally sharing copyright files – in particular, by way of file sharing software such as BitTorrent. ISPs have vocally objected to having to deliver the message to their customers on behalf of copyright owners. Copyright owners have also objected to the NZ$25 ($21) fee they have to pay to the ISPs.
  • In a recent decision regarding a European patent owned by AGA Medical Corporation the District Court of The Hague assessed the question of added subject matter. The patent relates to septal occlusion devices with claims directed to a device made of a tubular braided metal fabric that is extended in diameter towards both ends, so with the shape of a dumbbell, where at least one of the extended portions is cupped towards the other. Occlutech International sought a declaratory judgment that its devices do not infringe the patent and challenged validity of the patent.