Search results for

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.

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.

Australia

null

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.

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!

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.