MIP Search | Managing Intellectual Property

New act for IP office

A new act governing the Norwegian Industrial Property Office will come into force from January 1 2013. The act provides changes for the organisation of the Board of Appeal, oral procedures and the possibility to award legal costs during administrative review.

Managing IP Correspondent, May 30 2012

Court says ‘no’ to milking the discovery process

New Zealand's chief High Court judge recently re-affirmed the courts' disapproval of fishing expeditions by parties during discovery. The decision also highlighted the difficulties of suing only the contributory infringer in proceedings for infringement of process or use style claims.

Managing IP Correspondent, May 30 2012

EU parliament issues resolution on bio patents

Not many patent cases have caused so much uproar as the 'broccoli' and 'tomato' cases that were decided last year by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO. Recently, the European Parliament has interfered by issuing a resolution on the patenting of essential biological processes. In this resolution, the Parliament says that patent laws should not prevent breeders from using a protected plant for further breeding activities, similar to the regulation in the UPOV convention.

Managing IP Correspondent, May 30 2012

How to prevent frivolous actions

Having spent years litigating IP matters, I have shared the frustration of clients who have been forced to intervene in administrative litigation because they are being frivolously accused of having committed an administrative infringement; their trademarks have been misappropriated; or their IP rights are being attacked in an ungrounded manner, through counterclaims that are filed in response to infringement actions previously filed by the owner of the IP right.

Managing IP Correspondent, May 30 2012

Copyright Board cannot order interim tariff

In the recent decision of Super Cassettes Industries v Music Broadcast, the Supreme Court overturned a finding by the Delhi High Court that permitted the Copyright Board to grant an interim compulsory licence to a copyright in any Indian work.

Managing IP Correspondent, May 30 2012

Details of the new Trademark Law

A new law has been enacted in Greece by virtue of which the previous Trademark Law has been extensively amended. But because of several administrative changes that need to be made, the new law will not come into effect until October 11 2012.

Managing IP Correspondent, May 30 2012

Confusion over Germany and PCT claim fees

On October 1 2009, an amendment to the law on costs in patent affairs came into force in Germany. Previously no claim fees existed at the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO). The amended law regulates that every claim in excess of 10 claims incurs increased filing fees (electronic filing: €20/claim, paper filing: €30/claim). Compared to other jurisdictions, these claim fees are moderate.

Managing IP Correspondent, May 30 2012

First names make a difference in wines

French Trademark Law provides for the coexistence of a registered trade mark and an identical surname used in the course of trade. To protect against fraud, the latter can use its surname, which is an attribute of its personal rights, as a company name or trade name, excluding trade mark applications. The conditions are good faith and lack of a likelihood of confusion. The coexistence is fair if all precautions are taken against confusion and taking advantage of existing trade marks.

Managing IP Correspondent, May 30 2012

Rulings show need for clarity in interpreting claims

While the legislative work on the unified EU patent system has not progressed recently, and there has been no sensational news from the EPO, there have been a few recent decisions of the boards of appeal dealing with the interpretation of claims in EPO proceedings. More specifically, the question of whether and to what extent the description may be used to interpret the claims.

Managing IP Correspondent, May 30 2012

Split understanding on the relevant public

In one of its recent judgments, the Austrian Supreme Court had to decide on the likelihood of confusion between the word mark Sinupret registered (among other things) for pharmaceutical products and the sign Sinuvex used for pharmaceutical products.

Managing IP Correspondent, May 30 2012

Search results for