Search results for

On November 9 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in In re Bilski, a case that will likely impact whether business methods, already patented and to be patented, are eligible for patent protection under US law. Patent-eligibility under section 101 of the US patent code is one of several hurdles to patentability, and requires that an invention be a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter". Not all processes are patent-eligible. Although the Supreme Court has not yet precisely defined what is required of a process to be eligible, it has identified what is not eligible for patenting – laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas (the Diehr test).

Last year Syria amended the provisions of its trade mark law that deal with the protection of famous marks.

A comprehensive indication means an indication of goods including various goods and is divided into comprehensive indication in a narrow sense, as recognised on January 1 2007, and comprehensive indication in a broad sense, as recognised on September 16 2008. A comprehensive indication in a broad sense means an indication of goods which falls under multiple similarity codes within the same class, for example clothing, and comprehensive indication in a narrow sense means an indication of goods which falls under the same similarity code within the same class, for example footwear.

In many jurisdictions, non-conventional trade marks are in principle recognised as valid and viable trade mark types, but trade mark owners seeking to register such marks will often face special problems, with stricter registrability tests being applied than in the case of conventional trade marks. This is certainly also the situation in Switzerland under current practice. However, in a recently published decision, the Federal Supreme Court established for the first time in its practice the criteria for registrability of musical marks (sound marks consisting of a sequence of musical notes) and thereby significantly facilitated the registration of such marks compared to the previous practice of the Swiss Trade Mark Office and the Federal Administrative Court.

Colorplus Fashions, an Indian corporation, applied for registration of the mark ColorPlus (stylized) in Thailand in Class 25 for apparel products. In examining the application, the Trade Mark Registrar determined that the word "colorplus" signifies colourful or high-quality colours, which is directly descriptive of the properties and/or characteristics of the goods applied for. The mark was therefore refused for registration on the grounds of nondistinctiveness. Colorplus filed an appeal to the Board of Trade Marks, but the Board agreed with the Registrar's refusal on the same grounds. Facing rejection of the mark, Colorplus filed a civil suit before the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court in an attempt to overturn these decisions.

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) will officially be opening a Singapore Office of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO Center) in January 2010. The WIPO Center is the first outside of Geneva and will be located at Maxwell Chambers in Singapore's International Dispute Resolution Center.

On December 7 2009, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati dated July 15 1998, finding Philippine Airlines (PAL), the country's national airline, guilty of infringing the patented shell designs of Sabine Koschinger, with award of nominal damages and attorney's fees of P70,000 (about $1,500). Koschinger was the owner of two industrial design patents (4271 and 4273) filed with the Intellectual Property Office (IPPhil) on May 31 1988 and issued on January 24 1989. She claimed that for its first class flight accommodations, PAL used table linen and placemats depicting her designs without her authority. From January to April 1988, PAL purchased its linens and placemats with Koschinger's shell design through the Philippine Trading International Corporation (PITC), but in May 1988 PAL stopped ordering from PITC and sourced it elsewhere.

On 18 December 2009, the New Zealand High Court and Court of Appeal both issued trade mark decisions, one considering a procedural issue and the other trade mark infringement.

On the basis of the UPOV treaty and the various national and European regulations on breeders' rights, the protection for a specific plant variety also extends to varieties that are "essentially derived" from that variety.

Although grey goods, also known as parallel imports, are regulated under the Mexican Industrial Property Law (IPL), the IPL treats grey goods bearing trade marks very differently from those involving patents.