Search results for

According to the Vietnam National Internet Centre (VNNIC), there have been hundreds of complaints requesting the withdrawal of registered .vn domain names. The most popular ground for such complaints is that the registered domain names are identical to complainants' registered trademarks or trade names. Many complainants are owners of famous trade marks. As a result of this situation, on March 17 2010, the VNNIC issued Guidelines on Handling of Disputed ".vn" Domain Names.

Peter Ollier reports on the Australian government’s plans to introduce a hardline packaging regime for cigarettes, and how the tobacco industry plans to oppose it

On April 30 2010, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) published its 2010 Special 301 Report examining the application and effectiveness of intellectual property rights enforcement (IPR) by countries around the world. The USTR bases its opinion on submissions received from different groups, including lobbies such as the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America and the International Intellectual Property Alliance, as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) like Doctors without Borders.

After receiving notice of an allegation of infringement from a trade mark owner, the receiving party is often put in the unenviable position of having to make a unilateral determination to either cease the activity at issue or continue with conduct that potentially violates a third party's rights while it waits to see if formal legal action is initiated.

On May 9 2010, Law 66/2010 for the modification and completion of Law 84/1998 regarding trade marks and geographical indications (Law 66/2010 or the Law) entered into force. The Law brings major changes to the trade mark registration and protection system in Romania. Thus, certain steps have been excluded from the registration procedure, while others have been simplified. Also, the period of time for the examination and registration of a trade mark, as well as for challenging the decisions issued in this respect, have been shortened.

In April this year, Syria issued a new law for the regulation of trade in human medicines. The principal focus of the new law is on the regulation of the trade in and use of substances for the making of medicines and pharmaceutical products through the licensing and control of warehouses. However, the law also contains some important new provisions dealing with counterfeit products.

With the vast advancement in information and computer technology, using information contained in web pages as evidence in patent invalidation proceedings is quite common nowadays. However, since information on the internet changes more frequently than information in conventional media, it is relatively difficult to preserve web page information or to use such information as legal evidence. Hence, archived web pages that are retrievable using the Wayback Machine, a service provided by the Internet Archive, a non-profit organisation, have become an important source of prior art data in patent invalidation proceedings.

The Dutch company Formula One Licensing BV filed an application for a trade mark – Formula 1 Russian Grand Prix. The examiner of the Patent Office refused registration in classes 09, 16, 18, 25, 28, 38, 41 arguing that the claimed designation was confusingly similar to a number of trade marks (no 217978 and others) which include word elements Grand Prix for homogeneous goods and services in classes 09, 16, 18, 25, 28, 38, 41 and with a combined trade mark no 361073 which includes word elements Grand Prix de Russie in classes 09, 16, 18, 25, 28, 38, 41 for homogeneous goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 41. The examiner also argued that since the claimed designation included the word Russian it could mislead the consumers with regard to the provider of the goods and services because the applicant was a foreign person.

Under the Singapore Patents Act, one prosecution option that an applicant may select is to request examination based on a prescribed foreign search report, including the International Search Report (ISR) in the case of a national phase application (PCT).

Norway is part of the European Economic Area but not part of the EU, hence EU designs do not offer protection in the Norwegian territory. Up until now, the only possibility for protection of designs in Norway has been through national filings.