Search results for

As pointed out in G 01/93, the inclusion of a limiting but not originally disclosed feature into granted claims may lead to the infamous "inescapable trap" in EPO practice: because of Article 123 (2-3) EPC, the respective feature can neither remain in the claims nor be deleted. The only way out of the trap is to substitute the inadmissible feature for a narrower and originally disclosed one. If no such feature is available, the respective claim is regarded as inadmissible under Article 123(2) EPC.

IP takes to the small screen, courtesy of Wallace & Gromit and Harry's Law. Plus, is there a French conspiracy at the EPO

The Court of Appeals in Civil Matters, Division D, has rendered a judgment on an issue of great importance for new technologies: the liability of search engines regarding the content of websites published by third parties.

It is a common practice among entrepreneurs in the fashion business to offer their customers goods marked with a famous brand on a principle called "total look". The principle consists in offering to customers not only clothing, but also the full set of accessories, such as handbags, watches and glasses. It may happen that a trade mark has been registered only for clothes and its protection does not cover other accessories. In spite of this, some customers see the existence of strict connections between the clothing and accompanying fashionable goods, and may think that those goods have been made by the same entrepreneur. The reason is that the goods complement each other and contribute to the creation of an overall image to a certain circle of customers. In such case, the protection may be extended to those accessories that are not covered by trade mark registration (see case T-443/05, El Corte Inglés/OHIM Bolaños Sabri, PiraÑAM diseño original Juan Bolaños). As frequently happens, the accompanying accessories are the elements that create and decide someone's personal image, giving that person an original character and originality.

On January 1 2011 Swiss civil procedural law will finally be unified when the Federal Code of Civil Procedure replaces the 26 cantonal civil procedures. With the new act, as before, each canton has to designate a single first instance court for IP cases, which is competent for hearing cases relating to infringement, validity, ownership, transfers and licences of IP. For patent cases only, this cantonal competence will end for validity and infringement cases (and for actions directed to the grant of a licence) on January 1 2012, when the Swiss Federal Patent Court of first instance will start its work. The president and the other judges of this new court have been elected by Parliament and work for establishing the court's infrastructure is under way.

From November 1 2010 it will be possible to register domain names under the sub-domain .co.no in Norway. For the first three months, only registrations by companies with a trade mark registration corresponding to the domain name will be accepted. The registrations are accepted based on a first-to-file principle. After three months anyone may apply for a registration of a domain name under .co.no. Having a place of business in Norway is not necessary.

The protection and assertion of IP rights is perhaps as important as their acquisition. While there has been a recent spurt in the number of trade mark registrations, infringement has also been on the rise. A recent decision of the High Court of Delhi in Cadila Healthcare v Diat Foods (India) highlights yet another attempt by a company to safeguard its brand.

The Federal Court of Canada recently issued a landmark decision regarding patent eligibility, holding that business methods can be patented in appropriate circumstances.

Choosing trade secret protection over other types of IP rights can have its advantages – but only if some crucial steps are taken. Randall E Kahnke and Kerry L Bundy explain

Jappy GmbH v Satoshi Shimoshita. WIPO Mediation and Arbitration Center