Search results for

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.

A recent patent assignment dispute in Taiwan addressed important issues.

A recent (February 12 2007) judgment of Commercial Court 4 in Barcelona makes an interesting contribution to two issues: imitation and the requirements for imitation to be unlawful.

For several months breastfeeding advocacy groups and the Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines (PHAP) have been at loggerheads over the implementation of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of Executive Order No 51, known as the Milk Code, which was to take effect on July 7 2006. However, the PHAP filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court (GR No 173034) against Department of Health (DOH) officials, questioning the constitutionality of the RIRR, claiming it was inconsistent with the Milk Code that was issued on October 28 1986. The DOH secured a temporary restraining order enjoining the DOH from implementing the RIRR.

The New Zealand government is about to bring in tax relief as a means of spurring private sector investment in research and development in New Zealand. This is likely to have the effect of encouraging innovation and investment in intellectual property.

There is no doubt that substantial efforts have been effected in Mexico to improve trade mark protection, such as those contained in the 2005 amendment to the Mexican Industrial Property Law, where the possibility to obtain declarations for well-known and famous trade marks has been established. However, it is worth mentioning the potential advantages of establishing a trade mark opposition procedure (TOP) in Mexico, in order to provide the owners of registered trade marks with a legal action to prevent registration of new trade marks which may conflict with previous acquired rights.