Search results for

Last March Korea's National Assembly Committee on Culture, Sports, Tourism, Broadcasting & Communications passed a bill to amend the country's copyright laws to include a so called "three strikes" law to ban illegal uploading of copyright works of others. Despite a great deal of anxiety by many over the passage of the bill, especially from the online community, the revised copyright law came into effect on July 23 this year.

They are not many but they are nuisance: unable or unwilling to conduct normal business, IP speculators find novel ways to win customers – such as registering a mark that is designed to grab attention. In a recent case the Patent Office refused two trade mark applications (numbers 2006721262 and 2006723074) in which protection was sought for goods in classes 29, 20, 32 and 33. The proposed marks were PU IN and ПУ ИН (in Cyrillic).

In Tanduay Distillers Inc v Ginebra San Miguel Inc (GR No 164324), decided on August 14 2009, the Supreme Court (SC) reiterated the principle that a preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy for the protection of substantive rights and interests, and that its objective is to prevent a threatened or continuous irreparable injury to some parties before their claims can be thoroughly investigated and advisedly adjudicated. It is resorted to only when there is a pressing need to avoid injurious consequences that cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. The SC found that San Miguel failed to demonstrate clearly and unmistakably its right to injunctive relief.

The Pharmaceutical Management Agency (Pharmac) is responsible for managing the pharmaceutical budget for New Zealand's public health system. In particular, Pharmac decides which medicines will be subsidised. This has caused strained relations with research-based pharmaceutical companies wishing to supply the New Zealand market. In recent years, Pharmac seems to have had the upper hand, but a Supreme Court decision released in August and an agreement between AstraZeneca and Pharmac for the supply of two drugs, may indicate that the tide is turning.

The recent decision HR-2009-1735-A from the Supreme Court concerns the interpretation of Section 39 of the Patents Act and in particular the doctrine of equivalence in relation to an analogy method patent.

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.

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).

From Pascual Segura, director, University of Barcelona Patent Centre

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.

Legal uncertainties over whether it is possible to cancel domain names formed by using the names of others has now been clarified. In two decisions regarding domain names for websites that criticise the activities of the names' owners, the Austrian Supreme Court has made clear rulings.