Search results for

This is a follow-up to our October 2008 article about the cancellation of some anti-infringement clauses in Trade Mark Decree Law Number 556 by the Constitutional Court due to fact that these clauses, including penalties and security measures, should be prescribed only by laws, not decree-laws.

The UAE acceded to the WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996) on July 14 2004, and to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (1996) on June 9 2005. Being conscious of its international obligations regarding the protection of copyright and related rights in the digital context in the light of these treaties, the UAE amended its Federal Copyright & Related Rights Law No 7 of 2002 (CL 7/2002), through the Amendment Law No 32 of 2006. This amending law has led to a comprehensive protection regime against the infringement of copyrights and related rights in the digital context. The main points of this regime are:

In Caltex Oil (Thailand) Co, Ltd v Andaman Oil Pte Ltd, the Supreme Court ruled that a trade mark licence agreement is a type of reciprocal agreement, and, in case it is not registered, only the terms and conditions for use of trade marks or service marks are invalid and unenforceable.

The current Patent Law does not provide a cause of action against an indirect infringer. Accordingly, whenever a patent owner intends to sue a person selling an unpatented component for use in a patented invention, he/she would have to resort to the Civil Code in which the act of "aiding and abetting" is specified as a tort. According to the relevant stipulations in the Civil Code, however, only when a principal infringer has been held liable, would the instigators or accomplices be deemed to be joint tortfeasors and jointly liable for injury. Besides, the so-called all element rule which is generally used in interpreting the claims' scope sometimes makes it quite difficult, if not impossible altogether, for a patent owner to claim damages from the manufacturer of a component which is essential in the practice of the patented invention.

The Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) first began work as an international searching authority (ISA) and an international preliminary examining authority (IPEA) in December 1999. In the years following, KIPO was selected as a competent ISA and IPEA by several countries, including the US in 2006. KIPO became only the second foreign patent office (following the EPO) qualified to act as both an ISA and IPEA for US international applications, which could be interpreted as international recognition of KIPO's search and examination quality.

The Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trade Marks was adopted by member states of the WIPO in 2006 and stems from the Trade Mark Law Treaty of 1994 (1994 Treaty). The Singapore Treaty introduces important changes to the 1994 Treaty and internationally harmonises the administrative rules and procedures for trade mark registration. Having received its 10th ratification by Australia, the Singapore Treaty will finally enter into force on March 16 2009.

In Malaysia a trade mark owner has the possibility of enforcing his rights by way of a trade description order wherein an order of court is obtained to declare an infringing brand as a false trade description, which allows infringing products to be seized by the authorities and the infringers prosecuted.

Though less often than before, one still occasionally finds articles kicking Russia for inadequate performance in enforcement of IP rights. But a good illustration of strong enforcement is a recent judgment that, though it dismissed the prosecutor's demand to bring the infringer to justice, will hardly be criticised.

The following information is required in order to file a design application in Canada:

In a recent case, the plaintiff owned the trade mark Botox in class 3 (cosmetics) and class 5 (pharmaceuticals) for goods for cosmetical medicaments to be injected to smooth away wrinkles. They contain as active ingredient Botulinumtoxin A. It sued the defendant for trade mark infringement. The defendant sells through pharmacies a cosmetic product for smoothing wrinkles under the sign Botoina 1000, which does not contain Botulinumtoxin A and which is for external use on the skin.