Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 22,234 results that match your search.22,234 results
  • 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
  • China’s revised Patent Law contains new provisions on genetic resources. Jiancheng Jiang of Peksung explains how they affect applicants, and considers whether certain specific inventions would be patentable
  • My company wants to set up a website or blog that allows the public to post their own content. How do I make sure we are not held liable for any IP infringements?
  • Managing IP celebrated the winners of its 2010 awards at a dinner at the Dorchester, London
  • On May 13 2010, Attorney Ricardo R Blancaflor, newly appointed director general of the Intellectual Property Office (IPPhil), issued Office Order Number 84 entitled Policies and Guidelines on Counterfeit and Pirated Products. This Office Order mandates that all officials and employees of the IPPhil should respect IP rights and that they should not patronise counterfeit and pirated products. It also applies to visitors of the IPPhil, who shall be subject to inspection by the security guards. To implement the Office Order, the security guards at the entrances and exits of the IPPhil building are instructed to do the following:
  • As reported in the September 2009 issue, whether Japan should introduce a general concept of fair use was discussed at a sub-committee of the Agency of Cultural Affairs (Bunka-cho). In the autumn of 2009, the sub-committee had to cease official discussions because of a great divergence in opinions and it therefore constituted a working group to continue discussions. In January 2010, the working group submitted a report that recommended introducing the general concept of fair use. As a result, the sub-committee came to a general agreement to restart discussions to introduce the general concept of fair use for limited purposes. Parody use was clearly excluded from the discussion. On May 27 2010, the sub-committee published an interim report that recommended introducing the general concept of fair use. The report suggests the following uses of copyrighted works will be included in the general concept of fair use:
  • A celebrity sex scandal has raised numerous legal issues for artists in Indonesia. In early June, videos allegedly of a well-known singer and his celebrity girlfriends having sex were leaked on the internet. The media and the public have focused mainly on the moral issues. This also happened several years ago to two well-known singing stars in Hong Kong.
  • When Venus Fashions and Grapholite Moses Printers launched their Hebrew language magazine Belle in Israel, Elle, the international women's magazine sued for an injunction. Both magazines focus on women's fashion, beauty, health and entertainment.
  • The Patent Amendment Act 2005 brought about a significant inclusion to the then existent prosecution scheme by introducing the scheme of post-grant opposition. The legislation provides that a post-grant opposition as under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act 1970 may be filed within one year of the grant of the patent on the same grounds governing pre-grant oppositions as prescribed under Section 25(1). However, one of the vital differences between the two provisions rests in the locus standi of the person moving to oppose the grant of a patent: a pre-grant opposition being allowable from "any person", while only any "person interested" being entitled to file post-grant opposition.
  • The French Federation of Perfumery Industries started opposition proceedings against a Greek trade mark application for perfumery goods in international class 3 containing the applicant's first name along with the term "de Paris" on the basis that said sign is deceptive as to the origin of goods concerned. The applicant contested the opposition on the grounds that the term "de Paris" indicates her connection with Paris, France, not the origin of the goods covered by the Greek trade mark application at issue.