Search results for

Matt Swinn and Stephen Stern of Corrs Chambers Westgarth explain the Federal Court’s moves to speed up litigation

On May 19 2010 the Australian High Court delivered its judgment in the long-running dispute between E&J Gallo Winery and Lion Nathan Australia. The dispute focused on two principal causes of action. First, Gallo's claim that Lion Nathan's use of the trade mark Barefoot Radler infringed Gallo's registration of the trade mark Barefoot. And second, Lion Nathan's application to cancel Gallo's registration of the trade mark Barefoot on the grounds of non-use. However, there were other aspects of the proceedings that raised issues of fundamental importance to trade mark law and practice in Australia. Three of those issues are canvassed below.

Mexico’s drug regulators are preparing to issue new rules on biocomparable drugs. Alejandro Luna and Juan Luis Serrano of Olivares & Cia explain what patent owners can expect to see

In the past six months, India’s judicial authorities have clarified how the country’s amended patent law should be applied to applicants and opponents. Gitika Suri and Sandeep Kumar Bhola of Anand and Anand review two recent decisions

On September 1 2010, new anti-pirating legislation aimed at curbing the pirating of DVDs and CDs entered into effect. The new regulations are set forth in Decree No 75/2010/ND-CP Providing Regulations on Administrative Penalties in the Area of Culture (Decree 75), which was promulgated by the Government on July 12 2010. Further guidelines for the new regulations were prescribed under Circular No 09/2010/TT-BVHTTDL of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, which was issued on August 24 2010.

Taiwan's Trademark Export Monitoring System was abolished in July 8 2010. So applications for recording registered trademarks for export monitoring purposes are no longer accepted. However, for trademarks that have been recorded with the authorities, the border protection remains good until expiry of the recorded durational terms thereof.

The Singapore Patents Act defines a patentable invention as one that is novel, inventive and capable of industrial application. Like most jurisdictions in the world, Singapore adopts an absolute novelty requirement. For an invention to be novel in Singapore, it must not form part of the state of the art. The Act defines the state of the art as follows:

Japanese patent applications should be exceptionally careful in describing the claim of the patent, as courts favor an objective determination of disputes concerning the matters set out in the application. Underscoring this is a recent judgment of the Osaka District Court, which ruled against the holder of a brand-name pharmaceutical patent and in favour of a generic company due to the former's carelessness in determining the claim.

Generally slogans are considered marketing tools rather than indications of the origin of a good or service, so registering them as trademarks is difficult, and not just in Israel. However, many companies invest considerable resources in developing slogans for branding, and wish to prevent others from using them.

In a recent judgment, the Court of Justice of the EU was called upon to interpret Article 9 of the European Directive 98/44/EC (Biotech Directive) in respect to the scope of protection of a patent on a product containing genetic information (Judgment of July 6 2010; case C-428/08; Monsanto v Cefetra et al).