Search results for

Singapore's Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Act (hereafter the "Human Cloning Act") came into force on October 1 2004 and has been in force for five years. The Act does not prohibit the creation of human embryos up to the 14th day of development or harvesting stem cells from such embryos for research purposes. The Human Cloning Act therefore provides for a relatively liberal environment in Singapore for stem cell research.

The recent Patents Court decision in Edwards Lifesciences v Cook Biotech highlights the dangers of filing a patent application before ensuring that the interests of any co-inventors have been assigned. The proceedings concerned the validity and infringement of Cook's patent for an artificial heart valve. Mr Justice Kitchin found that the patent was invalid for obviousness over cited prior art and, in addition, had not been infringed by Edwards' device. During the proceedings an issue arose regarding the validity of the claimed priority date for the patent application. This was significant as it would determine which prior art was relevant and in particular, whether an article published close to the original filing date was available as prior art.

Under Section 18 of the Thai Trade Mark Act, applicants are entitled to appeal to the Board of Trade Marks when the Trade Mark Registrar initially finds their mark unregistrable, and the decision of the Board shall be deemed final. However, many trade mark owners file a complaint appealing the Board's decision with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court), and later file an appeal with the Supreme Court if the IP&IT Court rules against them.

The Chamber of Patent Disputes has granted an appeal filed by Chelsea Football Club Ltd against trade mark registration number 289,240 obtained by a Russian company Modus and later assigned to a British company Saltgrie Properties Ltd (UK).

A trade mark which directly describes a quality, function, characteristic, or ingredient of a product or service, or is descriptive of other aspects of the product or service cannot be registered, according to Article 23.1.2 of the Taiwanese Trade Mark Act.

Amendments to the Portuguese Industrial Property Code published on July 25, 2008 entered into force on October 1 2008.

Dart Philippines, authorised manufacturer and importer into the Philippines of Tupperware products, entered into a distributorship agreement in 1986 with the Calogcog spouses. On April 30 1992, Dart informed the Calogcogs that it was not renewing the agreement because of violations. However, the agreement was extended to September 30 1992, on the Calogcogs' written promise that they would observe and comply with its terms and conditions.

The Malaysian Tourism Minister's statement that Malaysia intends to stake its claim on recipes synonymous with the country's identity, has sparked controversy among the public. Reaction is especially high in Singapore, where people dispute the origins of certain dishes Malaysia intends to claim.

After Romania's parliament rejected in 2007 a bill to modify and complete Law no. 84/1998 regarding trade marks and geographical indications, a new bill has now been approved by the government and will be brought before legislators.

Article 17, paragraph 4 of Law Number 99 of July 23 2009, the so-called Development Law, which came into force on August 15 2009 has already been repealed.