Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 22,063 results that match your search.22,063 results
  • The Dutch District Court of The Hague has construed its power as a national court under the EPC 2000 on the issue of partial revocation (article 138 EPC). In Boston Scientific v Expandable Grafts Partnership the court held that, if the patent owner submits patentable limited claims, the material grounds to refuse those claims are limited to new matter or extension of protection.
  • Under Japanese Patent Law, a patent licence can be registered in the Japan Patent Office (JPO) when both the licensor and licensee agree to the registration. Once registration of the licence is made, the registered licence is valid against a person to whom the licensor has subsequently assigned the patent and a bankruptcy trustee appointed for the licensor.
  • For trade organisations who are concerned about the branding of their origin and ensuring the standards of their product are maintained, the certification trade mark is a useful device which is available Malaysia. A certification trade mark has to be in respect of origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy or another characteristic.
  • The Delhi High Court has made a ruling in a recent trade mark case that has implications for the media industry in India. Warner Brothers had filed a suit against the proprietors of Mirchi Movies over the title of the latter's film Hari Puttar – A Comedy of Terrors, for being too similar to its Harry Potter franchise thereby infringing the plaintiffs' registered trade mark and diluting the goodwill of the plaintiffs and demanded stay on the release of the movie. Based on the alleged phonetic and structural similarity between the titles Harry Potter and Hari Puttar it was alleged that the defendants rode on the popularity of the plaintiffs.
  • Based on German 3-D-mark 399 06 072 (figure 1) registered for consumption-ready cereals and desserts in classes 29 and 30, German company Alois Müller GmbH & Co has obtained an interlocutory injunction against Italian company Milkon Alto Adige ordering it not to distribute in Germany its yoghurt product (figure 2), which also uses a two-chamber yoghurt cup (Civil Court Munich, file 4HK O 8370/08).
  • In October the Italian Ministry of Economic Development (MSE), the Italian Banking Association (ABI), the Italian Confederation of Industry and the Conference of Rectors of the Italian Universities (CRUI) signed a cooperation protocol on the financial and economic evaluation of patents. Italy is therefore the first country in Europe to provide an instrument for evaluating patents shared by both public and private sectors.
  • In Mexico, the Mexican Trademark Office (TMO) has been reluctant to grant registrations for composite trade marks, especially those involving the protection of the shape of bottles. Arguably, this is because the TMO improperly focuses its analysis solely on the shape of the bottle, without studying the collection of elements as a whole.
  • On November 11 2008 the Supreme People's Court of China published the draft Interpretation of certain questions on the application of law relating to the recognition and protection of well-known marks in the adjudication of civil disputes like trade mark infringements (Interpretations) for consultation.
  • In an important decision, Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Synthelablo Canada Inc [2008, SCC], the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed, in principle, the validity of selection patents where the selected members of a genus posses a special advantage not present in the remainder of the genus, provided the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness are satisfied. However, much of the Court's discussion has more general application.
  • In a recent decision the Austrian Supreme Court as the third and last instance (after the Austrian Commercial Court and the Higher Regional Court) held in preliminary proceedings that a patent claim can be amended after grant to change its scope of protection from a trivial-mixing process to a Swiss-type claim.