Search results for

The Taiwan Trade Mark Act stipulates that any mark identical with or similar to a mark registered or filed earlier by another shall be unregistrable. In assessing whether a junior mark is similar to a senior mark, the two marks are generally viewed in their entireties. However, in a recent opposition case, questions have arisen as to whether a junior mark incorporating several discrete components respectively similar to a series of senior marks will be deemed a similar mark and whether the form under which a senior mark is used in commerce will be considered in the assessment of likelihood of confusion.

Can the owner of an unregistered trade name sue for infringement? This was the main issue tackled by the Supreme Court in its decision issued on March 3 2010, in the case of Coffee Partners Inc vs San Francisco Coffee & Roastery, Inc (GR no 169504). Coffee Partners, a domestic corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in January 2001, has a franchise agreement with Coffee Partners, a British Virgin Islands company organised in 1997, to operate coffee shops using the trade mark San Francisco Coffee. San Francisco Coffee and Roastery is also a domestic corporation engaged in the wholesale and retail sale of coffee, registered with the SEC in May 1995. It registered the business name San Francisco Coffee & Roastery Inc with the Department of Trade and Industry in June 1995, but not with the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPhil).

Kraft Foods Polska Spólka Akcyjna from Warsaw, the owner of the Prince Polo trade mark (R-148617) gave a reasoned notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a a right of protection to the Marco Polo trade mark (R-174796) that was applied for by Zaklady Przemyslu Cukierniczego Mieszko SA for goods in class 30, mainly for pastry and confectionery.

The Mexican Trademark Office (IMPI) usually applies strict criteria concerning trade mark likelihood of confusion and distinctiveness. In order to determine marks' confusing similarity, examiners base their exam on an "analysis of the similarities", determining this from the existence of a common element and disregarding the marks' overall impression.

There are positive signs that the Supreme Court intends to treat trade mark pirates severely to protect Indonesia's reputation.

As was reported in the March 2010 edition of Managing IP, amendments to the Copyright Act of Japan came into force in January 2010. This article will highlight the reform to the ruling system (Saitei Seido system) that allows use of a copyrighted work, the owner of which is uncertain, under Article 67 of the Copyright Act.

In a recent judgment from the Athens Full Bench Court of First Instance, Commercial Law Division, the court awarded €69,400 as patent infringement damages based on a royalty of 7.5%. The actual amount due is almost triple in view of interest due, dating back to the time the action was filed. By the same decision €6,000 was awarded as non-pecuniary damages.

As reported in Managing IP, the member states of the European Union agreed on the fundamentals of a future European and European Union Patent Court (EEUPC) in December of last year. The legislative process that will eventually lead to a statute on the creation of an EU patent and the EEUPC is followed with great interest and anxiousness by industry, attorneys, national judges and other specialists. In this respect, a number of Europe's most esteemed IP specialists were assembled in Strasbourg, France, on 16 and 17 April at a conference organised by the CEIPI Institute of Strasbourg University to analyse and debate the proposed setup for the EEUPC.

In India, original artistic works may sometimes fall under the Designs Act and the Copyrights Act. This overlap has been much debated and has come up for adjudication several times before the courts. In a recent case, the Copyright Board made some pertinent observations, especially with respect to artistic works produced by the application of an industrial process.

Almost two years after the formation of the independent Appeal Council, which has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the State Intellectual Property Office, Croatian rights holders are feeling the benefits of its shortened procedures and the specialised knowledge of its panelists.