Search results for

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.

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.

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.

In the Singapore patent system, a key requirement before a patent can be granted is that each claim in the application at the time the grant fee is paid must be related to at least one claim that has been examined. In practice, this can be achieved by relying on either a local examination report, an International Preliminary Report on Patentability (IPRP), or prescribed information relating to a corresponding foreign application. This requirement for examined claims has been widely publicised and most applicants would by now be aware of its existence.

Under the Plant Varieties Protection Act, the right holder of a new plant variety has the sole rights to produce, sell or distribute, import, export, or possess for the aforementioned purposes. In this context, the eligibility and practicality for a foreign applicant who wishes to seek protection for its creation under the Act is a key issue.

The rules governing the activities of patent attorneys in Poland are regulated by the Polish Law on Patent Attorneys of April 11 2001 (Journal of Laws Number 49, item 509, with subsequent amendments). On the basis of Article 4, section 1, the profession of a patent attorney is to provide assistance in industrial property matters for private individuals, legal persons and entities without legal status:

In a decision rendered on July 8 2008, the EFTA Court held that Norway can only allow for parallel imports of products that are put on the market within the EU/EEA area.

A recently published assistant commissioner's decision has confirmed that a registered design in New Zealand may include only a single view, or minimal views, of the article to which the design is to be applied.

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.