Search results for

A monthly column devoted to IP curiosities and controversies, named in honour of John of Utynam – who received the world’s first recorded patent in 1449 diary@managingip.com

Despite its scope, few companies have registered for a European Community design since its launch. Three advocates describe their experiences

This year has seen a number of important steps for IP rights in Vietnam, beginning with amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property, which became effective on January 1 2010, and ending with substantial developments in IP enforcement. Two of the most notable developments were the first-ever court ruling on patent infringement in Vietnam and the issuance of a new decree that revises and clarifies the sanctions for IP violations.

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is intended to provide trade mark owners with a relatively quick and inexpensive way to resolve a dispute regarding a third party's registration and use of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the owner has rights. The UDRP provides a single mechanism for resolving the domain dispute and offers the potential for compelling the transfer of the domain name at issue to the trade mark owner. Since the UDRP is intentionally designed to be an expedited process without the costs associated with litigation, trade mark owners are often eager to use the UDRP as a means to get a domain name registration out of the hands of a perceived cyber-squatter.

The High Court reviewed the meaning of an "earlier trade mark" in coming to its recent appeal decision in an opposition case.

In March this year we reported that a draft patent law was before the Cabinet and had been made available to the public on the Patent Office website. Since then further work has been done on the draft and it has moved closer to a document that may meet Syria's various international obligations and agreements, both present and future.

Recently, the Malaysian High Court adjudicated on the issue of ownership of a mark in cases where an entity (such as a local distributor or dealer), in a commercial relationship with the trade mark owner, attempts to register the mark in its own name. The case was especially significant for foreign companies that are on the verge of entering the market but are yet to register their trade marks in Malaysia.

The Intellectual Property Office (IPPhil) has just issued a call for comments from the copyright stakeholders for submission on or before October 22 2010, regarding proposed House Bill 47 which seeks to amend the IP Code or Republic Act 8293. The bill centres on copyright, and its salient points are as follows.

Recently, a Romanian court issued an innovative decision retaining the defendant's bad faith in filing a sign for registration as trade mark, even though the claimant had no previous rights over the respective sign, and has only scarcely used the sign before the registration by the other party.

As of July 1 2010 a national representative for an applicant who is not a resident in Norway is no longer required. The earlier requirements for a national representative set out in The Norwegian Patents Act, Design Act and Trademark Act have been deleted. The right of being represented by a national representative is now regulated by the Public Administration Act, Section 12. The Norwegian Patents Act, Design Act and Trademark Act now provide a requirement of a correspondence address of the applicant or right holder, opponent or similar. If the applicant or right holder is represented by a national representative, the correspondence address is the address of the representative. The Norwegian Industrial Property Office will forward all communications to the correspondence address by regular mail. If the mail delivery of the communication fails due to errors in the correspondence address, any term set out in the communication will still continue to run. A notice of this communication will however be made public in the Norwegian Gazette.