Search results for

In Mexico when someone seeks protection for a title of a periodical publication, a Mexican intellectual property counsel should recommend obtaining copyright as well as trade mark protection as trade mark protection only will not suffice. The Mexican Copyright Law recognizes sui generis protection for titles of publications including magazines, heads of newspapers, newspapers, pamphlets, supplements and guides. The Law also recognizes other types of titles of publications, however for the purposes of this brief they need not be included.

It is well known that European legislation, in accordance with the principle of the single market, provides for the free circulation of products within the European Union. Any attempt to use the exclusive rights conferred by a trade mark in order to prevent or limit the circulation of products within the territory of the Union is coherently considered as illicit by case law. This is in accordance with the so-called principle of trade mark exhaustion.

Guidelines clarify trade mark law

The following comments relate to the laws and rules in Mexico regarding copyright protection terms, in accordance with different laws in force in Mexico since 1947. The purpose of this note is to explain how they could have impacted on foreign works of authorship. The author chose the case of US works because of the question NAFTA has posed, and because extending it to other countries laws would have made this note very long.

A patent application was filed in the Czech Republic with the priority claim of a German utility model application, but after the publication of the said German utility model application. This fact was used by a petitioner, who filed a request, to cancel the patent granted on the mentioned Czech patent application in a first instance proceeding.

The Supreme Court of Cassation has confirmed in a decision dated October 28 1998 and now published that section 1-bis of the Trade Mark Law prevents the registrant from the enforcement of his exclusive rights against third parties who use his trade mark, if it is necessary to indicate the destination of a product or service, especially as an accessory thereto or as a spare part thereof.

A company's intellectual capital includes a lot more than mere patents and trade marks

Civil procedure changes in Japan make it easier to claim attorney-client privilege

Even a casual student of United States patent law developments during the past year unavoidably would have happened on multiple discussions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit´ s State Street Bank & Trust Co v Signature Financial Group (149 F3d 1368 (Fed Cir 1998)) decision, that held computer software for conducting methods for doing business to be patentable subject matter and not per se unpatentable subject matter. Not only has a majority of the US legal community positively responded to this decision because it addresses critical patentability questions involving software, but also technology owners have responded with increased patent application filings. By last December, the US Patent and Trademark Office reported that applications claiming inventions in a fashion similar to the claims in State Street Bank had increased by over 40% over the previous year and that it expected to issue over 300 patents with business method type software claims by October of this year. Unmistakably, the pump was primed even before the State Street Bank decision issued.

When the Russian Patent Law entered into force in 1992, few people thought it would take six long years to form the High Patent Chamber. The need for such a tool was enormous. Disgruntled applicants had no other recourse if they were turned down at the Chamber of Appeals. The Chamber of Appeals solved the bulk of the problems when examiners refused, for whatever reason, to grant a patent. However, roughly one case out of four would leave the applicant dissatisfied and be a headache for the Patent Office and for the applicant. Such cases simply piled up and waited for better times.