Search results for

Payless ShoeSource must pay $304 million to adidas for infringing its famed "three-stripe" mark

The Federal Circuit last month examined terms such as "tangible", "abstract", "concrete" and "transformative", in the closely watched In re Bilski hearing

Emma Barraclough, London

The US House Judiciary Committee has passed a bill designed to give the government more powers to crack down on IP crime

The Japan Fair Trade Commission has searched the offices of the country's largest music licensing society

Peter Ollier and James Nurton, Berlin

In connection with the promotion or advertising of their goods, companies often try to compare their product offerings with those of a competitor. The use of comparative advertising often raises the question of how to refer to a third party brand properly without infringing that party's proprietary rights. This issue also arises when a company offers a service that directly relates to an already existing third party product offering and that company wants to reference the third-party brand in order to describe the services it offers (and the relative advantages).

Your company learns that a competitor has copied the invention in one of your most valuable patents. Your patent counsel advises there is a strong case of infringement, and your company initiates a suit. During discovery it is revealed that a second person contributed to the invention, but was not identified as an inventor in the patent.

The law on disclosing clinical trial data looks set to change following a recent announcement by the UK government. The rationale behind the proposed changes, which are due to be introduced into UK law by the end of this year, is that pharmaceutical companies should be in no doubt as to their responsibility to disclose any information they have that would have a bearing on the protection of health.

In Ahmed Oomerbhoy & Anr v Gautam Tank & Ors 2008 (36) PTC 193 (Del) an order was filed against plaintiff no 1, a partnership firm, who had taken over the possession of the partnership business assets of a company which was trading as M/s Ahmed Mills; stipulating that they safeguard all trade marks and take action against any unauthorized usage. The first plaintiff had been carrying on the business of manufacture, distribution, sale and dealing in edible oils for more than 50 years under its various trade marks including Postman, registered under the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958. The firm also has a copyright for the artistic labels under the Copyright Act, 1957. The trade mark registrations are still valid while the design registered with effect from March 29 1989 expired in 2004. Also, the mark and device of Postman have acquired substantial reputation and goodwill in the market on account of use of its mark continuously and extensively up to 2000.