Search results for

With the marketplace becoming increasingly international in scope and the availability of goods and services on the internet continuing to expand, trade mark owners are perpetually faced with the challenge of monitoring and protecting their brands. Obtaining a trade mark registration and then simply relying on employees to watch for new uses of trade marks by competitors are not sufficient steps to adequately protect a brand. If a brand owner does not diligently monitor the marketplace for potential infringement, by the time the brand owner learns of a third party's infringing use of the mark, the damage caused by such use often has already been done and enforcement options have become limited. Therefore, as a company's business grows, it is important that they develop a comprehensive trade mark protection strategy to safeguard their brand from infringement by third parties and to prevent the dilution of their valuable trade mark rights.

Copyright owners in the UAE may, before commencing action against service providers residing in the US, have ways to settle potential disputes with those service providers.

What is the ideal way to resolve a dispute? For IP owners, the answers may vary, but words that often come up include: quick, non-disclosed, amicable and cost-effective.

Within a very short period of time, the ECJ had to answer two questions from the Austrian Oberster Patent- und Markensenat for a preliminary ruling. Both questions concerned Article 12 of the Trade Mark Directive, that is the genuine use of a trade mark, and in both cases the trade marks were used without gaining any profit by the trade mark owner. So one could assume that the answer to both questions should be similar – not at all!

Owners of trade marks face a difficult choice when they learn that their products have been counterfeited and are being sold in Malaysia.

On September 17 2008, the Italian Ministry of Economic Development, which includes the Italian Patent and Trade Mark Office, issued a formal list of all Italian supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) that are still in force, indicating their expiry date. The list is in the form of a legislative decree signed by the relevant minister.

In principle, a case record (including briefs and evidence submitted by either party) of a Japanese court is publicly available. However, upon request from a party alleging that the record contains a trade secret, a court may issue: an order to restrict third party inspection of a case record and/or an order to require the addressee, such as counsels and employees of the other party, to maintain confidentiality. Recently, the IP High Court and the Supreme Court decided on the issues relating to these orders.

The Full Federal Court has rebuffed an attempt to appropriate the international reputation of the Monster Energy brand drink in Australia in Hansen Beverage Company v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 181.

On January 19 2009, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in case no GR 175769-70 denying the petition of ABS-CBN Corporation, which accused Philippine Multi-Media System Inc (PMSI) of violating its broadcasting rights and copyright. This case arose from a 2002 administrative complaint filed with the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPhil) by ABS-CBN, the Philippines' top broadcasting company, against PMSI, a provider of a direct-to-home television services using satellite, alleging that PMSI's unauthorised rebroadcasting of ABS-CBN's Channels 2 and 23 infringed on its broadcasting rights and copyright. ABS-CBN anchored its complaint on Sections 211 and 177 of the IP Code, which provides that broadcasting organisations shall enjoy the exclusive right to carry out, authorise or prevent the rebroadcasting of their broadcasts, and copyright or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to carry out, authorise or prevent the public performance of the work, and other communication to the public of the work.

In a recent ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of South Africa, Emirates Industries was ordered to withdraw the packaging of its Mister Bean Baked Beans product. The ASA Directorate found that the packaging contravened Clauses 8 and 9 of the ASA Code, in that it exploited the advertising goodwill, and imitated the packaging of, Tiger Brands' Koo Baked Beans.