Search results for

Dart Philippines, authorised manufacturer and importer into the Philippines of Tupperware products, entered into a distributorship agreement in 1986 with the Calogcog spouses. On April 30 1992, Dart informed the Calogcogs that it was not renewing the agreement because of violations. However, the agreement was extended to September 30 1992, on the Calogcogs' written promise that they would observe and comply with its terms and conditions.

After Romania's parliament rejected in 2007 a bill to modify and complete Law no. 84/1998 regarding trade marks and geographical indications, a new bill has now been approved by the government and will be brought before legislators.

The Malaysian Tourism Minister's statement that Malaysia intends to stake its claim on recipes synonymous with the country's identity, has sparked controversy among the public. Reaction is especially high in Singapore, where people dispute the origins of certain dishes Malaysia intends to claim.

The Osaka High Court has acquitted the designer of a peer-to-peer file-sharing software from charges of intentionally assisting copyright infringement

In order to enforce an IP right, it is first essential to be able to prove the extent to which it is infringed. The Belgian Judiciary Code offers a particularly powerful tool for the owners of certain IP rights, such as patents, to achieve this in the form of the descriptive seizure.

In a recent domain name dispute decision (ZA2009-0028), the adjudicator ruled that the domain name registration of gardenmaster.co.za was abusive despite the fact that the registrant had been using the Gardenmaster trade mark for longer than the complainant.

James Nurton, Washington DC

There are many ways to exploit your IP assets. Paul Teta and Bill Cawley explain how to analyse your portfolio and maximise its commercial potential

Under Australian practice, it is possible to lodge amendments to add claims during litigation in order to further target a potential infringer's product. This is particularly useful, especially when the product has appeared on the market after the patent has been granted.

As reported in the March 2007 issue, in our opinion Austria has not fully implemented Article 10 of the EU Enforcement Directive. In particular, Austrian law does not provide for a measure to recall infringing goods from the channels of commerce. When implementing the Enforcement Directive to Austrian national law, the legislator considered that corresponding corrective measures already existed in the Austrian IP Acts as – with respect to patents – Article 148 of the Austrian Patents Act generally provides for that the infringer has to eliminate the unlawful situation.