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 22,231 results that match your search.22,231 results
  • The Intelektiv conference on intellectual property in Zagreb, Croatia is the first of its kind organised to promote strategic development of IP assets held by Croatian private businesses.
  • The advent of instant messaging, text messaging and internet speak has created a lingo reflective of the evolving state of language and communication. Many words and phrases have been reduced to non-standard abbreviations and symbols, including initials for profanities which would be easily recognisable to the messaging masses. Whether the Trade-marks Office will view such abbreviations as registrable or contrary to Section 12(1)(e) of the Trade-marks Act is yet to be determined.
  • Two recent court decisions against YouTube and the Pirate Bay herald a new era in the battle against online piracy in Italy, say Roberto Valenti and Elena Martini of DLA Piper
  • Italian-headquartered Sisvel administers patent pools for some of the world's biggest electronics companies. Founder Roberto Dini spoke to Emma Barraclough about licensing, enforcement and patent trolls
  • 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.
  • For over 11 years, Lucas and Peterson have been locked in a patent dispute over a portable saw mill. Lucas, an Australian company, was involved in the design and manufacture of outdoor machinery. Lucas' principal product was a grabber, which is a device for picking up logs. Peterson was a New Zealand company and its principal product was a portable saw mill that it sold mostly in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands.
  • 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.
  • Under the Copyrights Act 1957 copyright societies are authorised to grant licences for copyrighted works. No other person except the owner of the work or a copyright society can grant a licence. A copyright society has the task of collective management of the rights of the owners and furthers their interests to prevent infringement of their works, in India as well as abroad. As India is a member of international conventions, the copyright societies in India can have reciprocal arrangements with organisations in other countries for collection of royalties for use of Indian works in these countries. Again, the owners have to withdraw the licence bestowed on the copyright society without prejudice to the rights of the society. In India, copyright societies like IPRS, PPL, SCRIPT have been protecting and managing the rights of the owners for musical, sound recording and cinematographic works respectively.
  • 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.