Search results for

In 2004, the trade mark opposition procedure was introduced in Benelux. Now, six years and over 470 (appeal) decisions later, it might be useful to consider some dos and don'ts.

In order to update the means of receiving documentation, the Mexican Patent Office (IMPI) has amended the Rules for filing applications by means of an Act published on March 18 2010 in the Official Gazette. The Act is effective from the following day.

In view of the desire to spread the culture of innovation by strengthening the national systems for the protection of industrial property, the Italian and South Korean governments have entered into a wide ranging agreement whereby the two countries co-operate to combat counterfeiting and better protect industrial property.

In March 2010, when a New York Federal Court declared invalid 15 claims in seven patents covering human genes, a legal beachhead against the patenting of human genes was established (Assoc for Molecular Pathology v USPTO).

United States trade mark law generally provides that a registered mark is considered abandoned if its use has been discontinued for a specified period with intent not to resume such use. Specifically, non-use of a mark for a period of three consecutive years constitutes prima facie evidence of abandonment of the mark.

In Thailand, registrars seeking to solve the problem of a mistakenly registered trade mark may call upon the solution in section 61 of the Thai Trade Mark Act, which permits the Board of Trade Marks to re-examine such marks. Based on this section, the Board conducts re-examinations on distinctiveness, dissimilarity, and morality grounds only when an authorised person, limited to either an interested person or a registrar, files a cancellation petition to the Board citing section 61. In the view of many registrars, section 61 provides a means of effectively revisiting decisions; nevertheless, the registrars, having already given their approval, rarely seek to use this solution. Recently, however, the Board rendered a decision in favour of the registrar's use of section 61 by withdrawing a registered trade mark which had been registered for more than five years.

In a recently issued decision, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had to decide whether decisions of the European Patent Office (EPO) or courts of other European Patent Convention (EPC) member states are binding on German patent courts (Decision of April 15 2010, Xa ZB 10/09 – Walzenformgebungsmaschine).

The decision by a New York court in Myriad earlier this year left applicants facing an uphill battle to patent gene sequences. Michael Gollin and Rae Fischer explain how IP owners in the biotech sector can maximise protection for their innovations

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

With the entry into force of the Law on the Swiss Federal Patent Court (which may be expected to start operating in the first half of 2011) provisions will be introduced in the Swiss Patent Act that allow for a detailed description of patent infringing acts (saisie descriptive) as well as the seizure of goods (saisie réelle). The newly worded Article 77 of the Patent Act deals with this as follows: