Search results for

Good strategies bring a wealth of benefits. Jay Sha explains how to build solid portfolios for a global market

Dr Huang Hui and Paul Ranjard of Wan Hui Da compare the Third Revision of the Trademark Law to recent EU legislation

Stopping fakes from slipping through China's borders is a crucial issue for IP owners worldwide. Lawrence Wong, senior brand protection manager for Unilever in China, outlines his strategies to Managing IP

Depositions are not usually compared to sporting events, although some readers may think that comparing a deposition to a boxing match would be appropriate. In reality, a deposition could be compared to a tennis match because in both, once the event begins, no coaching is allowed. Indeed, in US patent litigation (and other litigation), the rule is that "objections should be stated as briefly as possible" and should not be "designed to coach or suggest an answer to the witness or otherwise to interfere with questioning of the witness by opposing counsel" (Collins v Int'l Dairy Queen, Inc, No CIV A 94-95-4MACWDO, 1998 WL 293314, *1 (MD Ga June 14 1998)). The lawyer defending the witness simply is not permitted to "make any objections or statements which might suggest an answer to a witness or which are intended to communicate caution to a witness with respect to a particular question" nor should the lawyer "attempt[] to suggest to the witness any particular or desired response" (Id at *3; see also Wilson v Sundstrand Corp, Nos 99 C 6944, 2003 WL 22012673, *5 (ND Ill August 25 2003) which held that counsel's objections suggesting answers were improper)). As the Court succinctly stated in Heriaud v Ryder Transp. Servs, No 03 C 0289, 2005 WL 2230199, *8 (ND Ill September 8 2005), when a lawyer is "trying to obstruct his adversaries' ability to obtain answers to their questions, and ... trying to coach his [witness] to answer-or not answer-questions ... [h]is behavior violates every rule of discovery that broaches the subject".

Many readers will be familiar with the concept of supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) and the extended period of protection they provide for medicinal products (and plant protection products) on patent expiry. Questions often arise, however, as to when they are available. The recent UK Intellectual Property Office Decision in Re Gilead Sciences, Inc provides some guidance on this subject – in particular, with regard to combination products.

A specialized Intellectual Property Department has been established in Jordan to fight IP crimes. The new department will empower its officers to take action against IP criminals. It will operate within the Criminal Investigation Department. The aim of the department is to bring down criminal activities relating to intellectual property, such as counterfeiting and piracy in the internal market.

The first regulation of trade marks in Turkish law, the Alamet-i Farika Regulations, was made during the Ottoman Empire in 1871. Although it was followed by many other regulations and several amendments before and after the republic, the biggest step forward was taken after the foundation of the Turkish Patent Institute (TPI) with the enactment of the present law in 1995.

In view of the ever-growing impact of internet technology on copyright protection, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, by making reference to the relevant statutes in other jurisdictions, has prepared a draft amendment to the Copyright Act purported to define and limit the liabilities of internet service providers (ISPs), including providers of connection services, caching services, information storage services and search tool services.

In this case, Hyundai Mobis (Hyundai) applied to register the mark Mobis for a class of goods related to automobile parts. However, Mobil Petroleum Company, Inc (Mobil) filed an opposition with the Trade Marks Registry to object to the registration of the mark on the following grounds:

The Patent Office is staffed with human beings and despite all the laws and regulations the human origin of the decisions takes its toll. But sometimes the diversity of the decisions of the Patent Office is perplexing.