Search results for

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.

Yoshitaka Sonoda and Diane Beylier of Sonoda & Kobayashi discuss expected patent law reforms

Anne Mariae Celeste Jumadla of Sapalo Velez Bundang & Bulilan Law Offices discusses ways to protect the IP of indigenous peoples

Peter Ollier introduces profiles of the 10 people from the region that made it into Managing IP’s list of the 50 most influential people in IP this year

Luis C Schmidt of Olivares & Cia dicusses the liability of intermediaries and other problems posed by digital technology

In June this year, Taiwan and China signed a "Cross-strait agreement on intellectual property rights cooperation and protection". The agreement was approved by the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan in August, and will come into effect after both sides have completed the respective announcement procedures.

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.

The precise legal situation when it comes to the protection of intellectual property in the Caribbean territories of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is probably in the blind spot of most Dutch patent and trademark attorneys. A recent constitutional reform seems a good occasion to set the legal framework straight.

Jon Parker of Rouse explains what the increase in internet use in the Middle East means for IP owners

Until recently, article 239 IPC of law 99/2009 clearly prevented the possibility of enforcing copyright for works of design in Italy. In fact, it provided that copyright on a design was not enforceable against a party that prior to April 19 2001 (the date of entry into force of the Italian law on cumulative protection, with which Community Directive No 98/71/EC was implemented) had commenced the manufacture, offer and marketing of goods made in accordance with designs or models of public domain. In short, legitimacy was acknowledged of the conduct of those parties that had copied the works of design that had become public domain prior to April 2001 and the law permitted them to continue to do so, without any time limit.