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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Search results for

There are 22,067 results that match your search.22,067 results
  • A recent Israel Patent Office Circular (M N 77) details new requirements designed to increase productivity, minimise duplication of resources and shorten exam ination.
  • Liability for infringement of US patents may come about in several different ways, including direct infringement, inducement of infringement and contributory infringement. While the IP laws of protection are clear in each case, foreign manufacturers continue to challenge their application to activities outside the US.
  • Under the previous Korean Trade Mark Act, when a company filed a trade mark (mark B) that was similar to a prior trade mark registration (mark A) that had grounds for invalidation, as long as mark A was registered and valid when mark B was filed, mark B could not be registered because of its similarity to mark A. This applied even if mark A was invalidated after mark B had been filed. Therefore, in a case where mark B was rejected on the grounds of similarity to mark A, the company filing mark B had no choice but to first invalidate mark A, and then refile mark B.
  • The trade mark Pascal was registered in 2004. In 2005 the owner applied for the trade mark Pascal Søtt & Salt (Pascal Sweet & Salty) for restaurant services in class 43.
  • Amendments to Japan's Copyright Act came into force in January this year. The changes are designed to promote the circulation of electronic copyrighted contents and comprise three parts: 1) amendments for freer use of copyrighted contents on the internet; 2) amendments to prevent circulation of copyright-infringing goods/contents; and 3) amendments to broaden the opportunities for disabled people to use copyrighted information.
  • As of January 29 2010 the EPO has launched the so-called PCT Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Programme with the USPTO and the JPO. The programme enable PCT applicants whose applications have been regionalised or nationalised before one or more of the three offices to have their patent application enter a fast track examination process, provided that another of the three offices has served as ISA and – where a demand was filed – as IPEA in the international phase. Moreover, the PCT application must contain claims that were deemed allowable in the international phase. To enter the fast track programme, the applicant must file a request and fulfil a series of requirements. The requirements for applications regionalised before the EPO are outlined here.
  • Several months after the ECJ gave its decision in PAGO International GmbH v Tirolmilch Registrierte Genossenschaft mbH (October 6 2009; C-301/07), most of the dust it has kicked up has now settled.
  • On December 8 2009, the National Office of Intellectual Property issued the long-awaited examination guidelines for industrial designs. The guidelines gave clarity to a number of issues that had been left unclear under the Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) and its regulations.
  • James Nurton reports on a controversial ruling in Benelux that could affect the value and popularity of Community trade marks
  • Until recently, IP owners had to sue trade secret thieves. Now the government can prosecute them. Michael Songer and Traci Rodriguez explain how