Search results for

When setting up, most businesses typically start the necessary steps to register their names as corporate names, but omit to protect the name as a trade mark.

Following the right procedures can be crucial when filing a domain name complaint. Dennis Cai offers some advice

Recent endeavours such as the Human Genome Project have profoundly increased what we know about DNA, the blueprint for life. These efforts provide vast amounts of information regarding the genomes, or complete genetic sequences, of humans and other species. For example, genes are now understood to constitute only a small portion of the human genome, while the remaining portion is the subject of intense research. Much remains unknown about where genes begin and end, what they do and how they do it. DNA research remains robust and routinely yields new synthetic DNAs and purified naturally occurring DNAs. Patents remain vital to protecting these new DNA inventions.

As part of their effort to create a commercial impression linking their brand with the qualities or reputation commonly associated with a particular city or country, companies often attempt to use the desired geographic location as part of their brand name. However, when a trade mark consists of a term that has geographic significance but the products offered under the mark do not originate from such geographic location, the mark may not be eligible for registration in the United States and therefore not entitled to the protections afforded by a US Certificate of Registration.

As an emerging market in the world, Turkey increasingly attracts the attention of trade mark owners. In 2007, more than 72,000 trade mark applications were filed (see chart) and Turkey has been ranked number three for trade mark applications in Europe for the past three years.

The Seoul Central District Court recently issued a decision that a patent holder was not liable for damages from a preliminary injunction even if the patent which was the basis for the injunction was invalidated after the injunction was imposed (Case no 2007 KaHap 43028). This decision is at odds with the current Supreme Court precedent that has strictly acknowledged the patent holder's liability in such cases.

This case relates to the opposition proceedings against application no 4-2006-003016 for the trade mark Dynaspec in the name of Kobelco Construction Machinery Co, Ltd, of Japan, covering goods in Class 7 such as power shovels, hydraulic excavators and other construction machines and apparatus. The opposition was filed by Dynapac International AB, of Malmo which owned the mark Dynapac for goods in classes 7 and 9, registered in the Philippines under trade mark registration no 029723 issued on August 4 1981 and renewed on August 6 2001, alleging confusing similarity.

The recent Australian High Court case of Northern Territory v Collins [2008] HCA 49 highlights the problems of the Australian contributory infringement legislation. The legislation was originally introduced in an attempt to align Australia's patent laws with those of the United States and other major countries. However, the convoluted operation of the legislation has left it doubtful that it applies to method patents per se.

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.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of South Africa has ruled that the image of "Aunt Caroline" on Tiger Brands' Aunt Caroline rice product, as apart from the Aunt Caroline brand, is worthy of protection.