Search results for

While companies are making tough decisions about where to cut budgets in a sagging economy, José Luis Ramos Zurita of Uhthoff Gomez Vega & Uhthoff explains why enforcing IP rights is one area in which they should continue to invest

Victor Garrido of Dumont Bergman Bider & Co considers the complexities surrounding patent applications for computer programs and business methods in Mexico, and offers advice for successfully navigating IMPI's restrictions on such inventions

Luis Schmidt of Olivares & Cia provides an overview of the global struggle between copyright and traditional knowledge

On May 24 1999 a Greek entity filed an application for a trade mark consisting of an image of Napoleon in uniform, having one hand inside his jacket, his other hand holding a roll of toilet paper, with the word Napoleon below. The trade mark was filed to cover toilet paper and other paper articles for household purposes.

Many states will grant a corporate charter to an entity provided that the name of the company is not identical to another company formed under the laws of such state. Therefore, parties interested in using a particular name in the US often operate under the misconception that simply obtaining such name as a corporate name in a particular state is sufficient to grant it rights to use such name and to defend it from claims of infringement. However, even though a state may accept a corporate name for incorporation, such acceptance does not constitute an adjudication of the legality of such use and does not undermine or otherwise diminish the trade mark rights that another party may already have in the same or similar name.

On October 1 2009, the Law on Simplification and Modernisation of the German Patent Law entered into force.

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.

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.

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 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