Search results for

In our June, 2007 briefing, we explained that patent trials are almost always open to the public. Of course, trials are the culmination of many months, sometimes years, of pre-trial discovery, including the production of documents containing confidential information and the deposition of witnesses. While it's generally known that such pre-trial discovery is not open to the public, a question often asked, particularly by non-US entities involved in US litigation, is whether the opposing in-house counsel will have access to the confidential documents produced and deposition testimony given in the litigation.

DR-CAFTA has brought about important changes in Honduran IP law. Decree 16-2006 which contains the Law of Application of the Free Trade Treaty (DR-CAFTA) states the Law's objective of protecting, promoting and strengthening the legal security for the different categories of IP rights contained in the legal instruments.

Pursuant to the amendments of the IP laws, which came into effect in Croatia on July 21 2007, an independent Appeal Board was established.

The concept of a trade mark will never be the same in Chile. To adapt and comply with international treaties signed by the Chilean government, a series of modifications have been made to the Chilean IP Law, including a new definition of a trade mark as "any sign that can be graphically represented, which is able to distinguish products or services". Therefore, not only words, logos, labels and colour combinations can be protected, but also sounds.

On the occasion of our last article of the year 2007, we thought it might be useful to compare past and present.

After the widely reported Häupl v Lidl case at the European Court of Justice (ECJ C–246/05), concerning the starting date of the five-year period in which to start use of international marks and about the validity of reasons for the excuse of non-use, we have now achieved a further referral to the ECJ by the Austrian Supreme Patent and Trade Mark Senate, the court of last instance in cancellation proceedings, in the case Silberquelle v Maselli over the trade mark WELLNESS for non–alcoholic beverages.

In an article in the November 2006 issue of Managing IP we reported the revival in Cape Verde of a Portuguese Code dated 1940, and proposed new IP laws for that country.

On October 22 2007 the Australian government eased our duty of disclosure provisions.

Entering into a sales agency agreement with an entity which has sales experience or relationships in a particular industry can often be a productive mechanism for a trade mark owner to expand its brand and to meet customers in a foreign country. When drafting an agency agreement, trade mark owners typically insist on a provision stipulating that the laws of a specific jurisdiction will govern in the event of a dispute under the agreement.

What can a brand owner do if a company sets itself up using that brand in its company name? To date brand owners have had little alternative but to commence proceedings for trade mark infringement and/or passing off and to seek an injunction requiring the company to change its name. That looked set to change with the introduction of a Company Names Adjudicator. Unfortunately this new procedure now faces a delay to its implementation and brand owners may have to wait until October 2009 before being able to benefit from it.