Search results for

The Kaohsiung District Court of Taiwan rendered a final decision in April 2007 in a dispute between the World Trade Centers Association, Inc (WTCA) and Kaohsiung World Trade Center Co Ltd (KWTC), a local company. In the case, KWTC's use of the term World Trade Center and its Chinese equivalent as part of its company name was held by the Court to be a deceptive or obviously unfair action that would affect trade order, and was therefore in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. The Court said that, although the trade mark registration owned by WTCA in Taiwan is the Chinese equivalent for Taipei World Trade Center, the three words World Trade Center contained in the mark are sufficiently distinctive to be a source identifier. The Court further indicated that, while KWTC's use of World Trade Center as part of its company name does not constitute trade mark infringement, such use would mislead the public into thinking that KWTC is affiliated with WTCA and would therefore engender marketplace confusion. KWTC was accordingly ordered to stop using World Trade Center and its Chinese equivalent as part of its company name and to change its Chinese company name registered with the authorities.

The debate concerning the need to clarify the secrecy legislation surrounding joint research projects has been going on for several years in Sweden without resulting in any legal amendments to safeguard secrecy. However, at the same time as the Seventh EU Research Framework Programme is now in force, the debate has finally reached a definitive solution.

The Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 2007 (TMA) was passed on January 22 2007. The TMA, Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules 2007 (TMR) and Trade Marks (International Registration) (Amendment) Rules 2007 has taken effect on July 2 2007. Highlights of the amendments are summarized below.

It is often asked whether it is necessary to register a trade mark in Cyrillic and Latin characters to avoid cancellation due to non-use in Russia. It is not without reason that usually a patent attorney recommends registration of both versions of the trade mark. However, it is possible sometimes to prove the use of a trade mark in Latin even though only its equivalent in Cyrillic is used.

Many proprietors of trade marks descriptive of their product's get up or packaging are sceptical about registering their trade marks because the Registry jealously guards against the registration of such marks for the obvious reason that they are descriptive of the product packaging and as such are not distinctive and objectionable. Examples of such marks are Oval Tin, Red Box and Blue Band.

Before the amendments to the Federal Law of Administrative Proceeding (FLAP), rulings issued by the Mexican Patent and Trade Mark Office (IMPI) were challenged through Amparo suits before the Federal District Court (FDC). Decisions rendered by the FDC were further contested at the Federal Circuit Court (FCC), which would decide finally the controversy.

With Law Decree Number 10/2007 the Italian law came into line with Community and international obligations on copyright on industrial design.

The Irish High Court has recently considered the meaning of "genuine use" of a mark in Compagnie Gervais Danone v Glanbia Foods Society Limited [2007] IEHC 126, High Court, Mr Justice Finlay Geoghegan, April 20 2007. The case involved Danone's Essensis mark which was registered in 2000 in Ireland for, among other things, milk, milky deserts and yoghurts. In 2006, Glanbia introduced into the market a range of fermented milk products called Essence. Danone sued for infringement and Glanbia counterclaimed.

The Indian pharmaceutical industry is ranked as the fastest growing pharma industry in the world. This growth was aided by the Patents (Amendment) Act 2005, India's final step towards achieving complete TRIPs compliance. The flip side of it is the threat posed to a generic industry that has, so far, ensured the availability of affordable drugs.

The European Patent Office (EPO) published in the April 2007 issue of the Official Journal Board of Appeal decision T1020/03 in which a more liberal view of so-called Swiss-type claims (second medical use claims) is expressed.