Search results for

One week from the initial term for submitting applications (November 2 2011), incentives from the Ministry of Economic Development are still available for small and medium-sized Italian enterprises for the filing and exploitation of IP rights.

Shmuel Rachmani is a photographer who was affiliated with the Ma’ariv newspaper over several years. Some of the time he was associated as a freelance photographer and some of the time he was engaged an employee. Rachmani’s contract with Ma’ariv left the copyright in all the photos with him.

In October 2011, WIPO organised a workshop on the PCT in cooperation with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights (DGIPR) Indonesia in Bogor, Indonesia. On the same occasion, a speaker from the DGIPR Indonesia presented on the development of the utilisation of PCT systems in Indonesia. The statistics provided by the DGIPR illustrated that the number of patent applications through the PCT route is increasing steadily in Indonesia (with the DGIPR as designated office). On the other hand, domestic applicants have not been making use of the ease and speed of the PCT system; this is proven by the small number of patent applications by domestic applicants filed through the PCT (with the DGIPR as receiving office).

It’s raining reforms in the IP Office at the moment. In October, the Department of Industrial Promotion and Policy (DIPP) sought comments on possible ways of strengthening and restructuring the IP Office in India. Following in the footsteps of the USPTO and the EPO, this discussion paper also hints at the possibility of providing greater financial and administrative autonomy to the Office. It will be interesting to examine the nature of the comments received and the steps that may be initiated in this regard.

Last summer there was a big change in the Rules of Civil Procedure in Greece relating to injunction proceedings, which are applicable in IP infringement cases. Under a previous rule, a claimant that was successful in injunction proceedings had to file a main lawsuit within 30 days of the grant of the injunction. If it did not, the injunction automatically became unenforceable. Under the new rule, the claimant does not have to do this unless it is specifically mentioned in the judgment under which the injunction was granted.

The Paris Appeal Court recently rendered its ruling in litigation involving an alleged infringer who had taken on the French Patent Office (INPI). It is one of the first decisions on the ability of a third party to take part in a decision related to a patent limitation.

The revised European Patent Convention introduced for the first time a review procedure for Boards of Appeal decisions by the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The grounds on which a review may take place are rather limited. Among other things, parties adversely affected by a decision in appeal can file a petition for review on the grounds that there was a violation of their right to be heard.

On November 14 2011, China issued The 2012 Plan to Boost the National Patent Industry Development Strategy, aimed at carrying out and implementing the National Intellectual Property Strategy Outline relating to patents, so as to facilitate the effective integration of patent work as part of economic and social development.

OHIM’s new mediation service in appeal proceedings in inter partes proceedings entered into force on October 23 2011. With this voluntary service, the parties are invited to reach a friendly settlement by filing a request to the Board of Appeal (BoA), which is the body in charge of the mediation service. Both parties, or their representatives, must sign the request for mediation, or otherwise show that the consent of the other party has been obtained. The mediation will be free of charge when conducted in OHIM’s office in Alicante. There is also the possibility to hold it at OHIM’s office in Brussels, where the Gevers headquarters are situated, for an administrative charge of €750.

This war concerns the use of the sign Bud and was fought between the famous brewery in Ceske Budejovice distributing its Budweiser Bier, famous in Austria, and an Austrian importer of American Bud and Bud Light from Anheuser-Bush. The case had been, with different legal questions, twice before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and three times before the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH).