Search results for

The recordal of a licence is mandatory under the Thai Trademark Act. However, in practice, the need to register is often willfully ignored by the trade mark owners, who find the requirement burdensome. With foreign companies, that lack of awareness is often the key reason behind non-compliance, exacerbating the risk of potential conflict inherent in the enforceability of such unregistered licence agreements.

The IP Court has jurisdiction over IP-related civil cases pursuant to the IP Court Organic Act and IP Case Adjudication Rules. However, jurisdiction is not exclusive according to the Rules. A legal question thus arises: if a plaintiff commences an IP-related civil action in a district court, could the court refuse to hear the case on grounds of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and transfer the case to the IP Court?

In a recent case the defendant, Zürich Insurance Company, had sent several cease and desist letters to the plaintiffs, claiming that their company name Zürich Trust Forum and registered trade mark Zürich Trust Forum infringed the defendant's trade mark and further IP rights. The letters demanded modest amendments of these names and mark. The plaintiffs subsequently sued the defendant for a declaratory judgement holding that the plaintiffs were not infringing any rights of the defendant and did not owe any damages.

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) issued a circular in the aftermath of the March 11 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami, reminding applicants that "Singapore has various existing provisions in our Patents, Trade Marks and Designs Act and Rules regarding extensions of time" and IPOS "will certainly do our best within the permit of our legislation to assist affected applicants". Under Singapore Patent Law, both as-of-right (automatic) and discretionary extensions of deadlines are available during patent prosecution.

According to the Polish Industrial Property Law, any person may give a reasoned notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection within six months from publication of the grant in the Polish Patent Office Bulletin. Non-compliance with the six-month deadline renders an opposition completely ineffective. Within the statutory six months the opponent is bound to specify the legal basis for the opposition, together with substantiation of it. If necessary, the opposition may have to be completed or supplemented upon the Polish Patent Office's request. It is not obligatory for the opponent to prove one's legal interest, however filing the opposition is limited to a strict time frame: if six months from the grant passes, the opportunity to oppose is no longer available. The opposition procedure is available to any party that is able to prove that for some reason granting the protection right for a trade mark has violated the law.

There is no telling what Filipinos would have done if they were prevented from viewing on real time the fight between their hero, pound-for-pound king Manny Pacquiao and Sugar Shane Mosley in Nevada last May 8. Fortunately the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of a lower court to execute, pending appeal, its decision to cancel the copyright registration of one Melecio Alonzo. The general rule is that execution shall only issue if the judgment has become final and executory. However, for good reasons and only after due hearing, discretionary or execution of a judgment pending appeal may be issued.

A proposal that will make it possible to implement patent prosecution highway agreements between Norway and other countries has been launched by the government. The proposal includes amendments to the Norwegian Patent Regulations enabling cooperation between the Norwegian Industrial Property Office and other patent authorities. Denmark and Finland already have such agreements with other countries.

The European Commission has proposed a “suggested solution” for a unitary patent court in the EU, which addresses objections raised by the EU Court of Justice

Since the start of the BEST programme (Bringing Examination and Search Together) oral proceedings in examination and opposition can be held both in The Hague and in Munich, whereas formerly these proceedings could only be performed in Munich. The Technical Board of Appeal has recently issued two decisions on the question of whether a party's request to conduct oral proceedings in Munich instead of in The Hague can be denied. In T0933/10, the original request was refused by the examining division. On appeal, the Board said that the examining division did not provide any reasons for its decision. Also, the arguments of the applicant were not dealt with by the examination division. Therefore, the Board decided that a substantial procedural violation had taken place and that the appeal fee should be reimbursed. The case was remitted to the examining division to enable issuing a new decision (with motivation). However, the Board did not indicate that the applicant's request regarding the venue of oral proceedings should be allowed.

A significant number of developing economies have, of late, mustered up the courage to antagonise multinational pharmaceutical companies by issuing compulsory licences. The rationale for this is concern over the public health. As is well recognised, compulsory licences are effective instruments to provide access to expensive drugs. It is interesting to note the overlap between compulsory licensing and data exclusivity. Although these are two distinct concepts, the former may be considered an exception to the latter.