Search results for

In the late 1990's, the Trade-marks Opposition Board retained a consultant to undertake a study and survey of its clients and stakeholders. The results of the survey were intended to streamline the opposition process, thereby reducing workload and costs for the Board and its clients. Initially, it was determined that further information was required regarding the nature of the Board's clients and their use of the opposition process. Consequently, the consultant reviewed over 500 randomly selected, completed opposition files, 80% of which were from 1993 – 1996 and the remainder from 1985 – 1988.

Argentine Trademark Law protects both products and service marks. Under the Law, the ownership of a trade mark and the right to the exclusive use thereof are acquired by registration in accordance with Section 4 of Law 22,362 (trade mark law), which has adopted the attributive system. Consequently, if there is no registry of a trade mark, there is no right thereto.

The topic of parallel imports, and the difference between international and national/regional exhaustion of rights in various jurisdictions, is a perennial favourite with Managing IP. Readers have enjoyed the adventures of IP owners and importers in Australia (Ralph Lauren, May 2008), Russia (Porsche, March 2009), France/EC (Dior, April 27 2009), DR/CAFTA (Supplement – Brand Management Focus 2009) and China (Supplement – China Focus 2009).

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

From Pascual Segura, director, University of Barcelona Patent Centre

The use of a trade mark that is identical or deceptively similar to another's trade mark leads to economic loss to the original proprietor as well as dilution of the mark and passing off. If the use of deceptively similar mark is in respect of pharmaceutical products falling in the same description, concerns of public health and safety also arise.

Indications are that the Commercial Court is relaxing its very strict evidential rules, making it easier for trade mark owners to delete unused pirated marks.

Whenever a person, whether Mexican or foreign, seeks to incorporate a company in Mexico, he will first require a permit issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (the Ministry) approving the use of the name requested for the new company. The same applies when changing a name as a result of a merger or acquisition. Although Mexican law prohibits the use of an existing trade mark as a company name and that the Ministry should review whether the name requested is not confusingly similar or identical to any existing trade mark de facto, this often does not happen. Therefore, the examination process is merely limited to the names of the companies recorded in the Ministry's files.

In its recent Decision 530/189/2009, the Hellenic Communications and Post Commission (EETT) accepted a complaint filed by the French company Société Anonyme des Mineral d' Evian against the registration of the domain name www.evian.gr in the name of a Greek subject. In particular, it held that Evian trade marks are well known internationally and that the domain name registration in the defendant's name may cause a likelihood of confusion, infringes their high distinctive character and may well result in their dilution, and that these dangers run contrary to the principles of good faith and good business morals.

With effect from August 1 2009, Measures for the Management of the Reproduction of Audio-Visual Products were replaced by new measures issued by The General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP). Aimed at strengthening the management and facilitating the healthy development of the reproduction industry in China, the newly enacted Measures For Reproduction Management consist of six chapters and 43 articles focusing on the establishment and management of business entities conducting reproduction activities, management of reproduction equipment and legal liabilities for any unauthorised activities.