Search results for

In November 2008 a new government was voted into Parliament in New Zealand. With the new government has come progress on some long-awaited IP legislation.

The purpose of the Act on the Evaluation of Chemical Substances and the Regulation of Their Manufacture. (Kagakubusshitsu no Shinsa oyobi Seizoto no Kisei nikansuru Horitsu, Law no 117 of 1973, the Chemical Substances Control Law) is to control the manufacture and importation of chemical substances which might affect the natural environment or human health. Under the Chemical Substances Control Law, notifications are required for the manufacture or importation of new chemical substances. However, notifications are not required for the manufacture or importation of existing chemical substances, which are comprised of approximately 20,000 different types of substance and had already existed at the time the Chemical Substances Control Law was established in 1973.

In May 2009, Vietnam's National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP) vowed to clarify various ambiguities surrounding patentability of use claims in Vietnam. At present, the NOIP interprets the relevant provisions of Vietnam's Law on Intellectual Property as prohibiting use claims. Each patent examination division in the NOIP treats this matter in different ways.

Section 44(e) of the US Trade Mark Act allows a foreign trade mark owner the ability to obtain a US Certificate of Registration based on their ownership of a foreign registration. The foreign trade mark owner does not need to allege actual use of the mark in the US in order to obtain a US Registration; all that is required is a verified assertion in writing in its trade mark application of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce in the US.

Widespread copyright infringement on the internet has a serious impact on a range of businesses. Since activities on the internet cannot be conducted without using internet service providers (ISPs), these ISPs are at risk of being sued by copyright holders. Because this situation is unfavourable to the growth and development of the internet industry, and in an attempt to deter online copyright infringement, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) drafted an amendment to the Copyright Act on February 14 2008 to specify the limitations on ISP liability. The amendment was passed by the legislative body on April 21 2009.

The Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld an appeal by McCurry Restaurant (KL), allowing McCurry to use the prefix Mc in the name of its restaurant. In this case, McDonald's Corporation's claim against McCurry at the High Court was premised on the fact that McCurry is liable for passing-off for using the prefix Mc in its name.

The "Postkantoor" decision of the European Court of Justice (case C-363/99 "Postkantoor") found among other points that point 6 of Directive 89/104 prevents a trade mark registration authority from registering a mark for certain goods and services on condition that they do not possess a particular characteristic. OHIM has already refused to accept some disclaimers on the basis of that finding. But national trade mark offices struggle with the breadth of the Court's finding.

During 2007, the Dubai Court of First Instance was called on to confirm the validity of the trade mark Aqua, used in respect of metal drain covers and the cancellation of the trade mark Aqua M BBM used and registered in respect of identical goods. The court dismissed the action, a decision that was confirmed by both the Courts of Appeal (Number 631/2007) and Cassation (Number 95/2008).

Under Thai practice, an application for a trade mark with multiple meanings may be rejected if one of the possible meanings of the mark could be considered descriptive of the goods for which registration is sought. Contrary to this common practice, however, the following case provides an example of a trade mark application that was initially rejected by the registrar on grounds of descriptiveness, but was subsequently accepted for registration by the Board of Trade Marks.

The Russian Patent Office refused registration of the trade mark In God We Trust, which was filed by a Russian company for goods in class 16 (paper and paper products) and services in class 37 (insurance, financial activities and related services). The applicant did not agree with the rejection of the Patent Office and appealed the official action. The Court then cancelled the decision of the Patent Office. In its turn the Patent Office filed a complaint against the decision of the lower court to the Court of Appeal, which cancelled the decision of the court of first instance based on the following arguments.