Search results for

With rulings against Pirate Bay and legislative reform in various jurisdictions, the role of ISPs is evolving fast. Five local lawyers explain current practice and make predictions for the future

What do Facebook, Microsoft and Pinterest get right, and wrong? Michael Kasdan and Charles R Macedo explain

Frederick Frei and Sean Wooden analyse case law around inequitable conduct one year after the landmark decision in Therasense v Becton Dickinson, and find that the defence remains viable

James Nurton spoke to Michel Lacoste of the eponymous clothing company during the INTA Annual Meeting in Washington, DC in May this year, about branding, counterfeits and the internet

With hundreds of new strings applied for, how should I approach them?

The Black IPs rock out at CIPA, aliens ask for copyright rights to the Earth's music, and some eyebrow issues

Trade mark applications filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office are typically reviewed by an examining attorney in the order in which they are received. In practice, this means that a trade mark applicant would usually not expect to receive any action on a newly filed application for approximately three to four months from the filing date. Although certain rights are conferred to an applicant upon filing, in certain instances special circumstances may exist in which an applicant requires that its application receive priority in the order in which it is reviewed. With those needs in mind, the USPTO has established a procedure whereby a trade mark applicant can file a petition to make its application "special" and reviewed faster than otherwise.

In a decision on patent infringement by the IP Court in March this year, the patentee was awarded the claimed damages but denied an injunction.

Thailand has several amendments in the pipeline for the Trade Marks Act. Amongst them is the introduction of smell and sound marks. The bill extends the meaning of a "mark" to include non-visual trade marks such as sounds and smells, which will bring Thai trade mark law in line with international standards.

In a recent patent infringement case, the plaintiff and appellant had requested the Commercial Court of Argovia to conduct pre-trial evidence proceedings, to allow the plaintiff to assess the available evidence and chances of success for an eventual patent infringement action against the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant acted as an accessory to patent infringement by supplying apparatus parts to the main infringer (an operator of a refuse disposal plant). The plaintiff invoked article 158 of the new Federal Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), which grants (among other, alternate grounds) the right to pre-trial evidence proceedings if the plaintiff makes a credible case for an interest that justifies protection.