Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 21,835 results that match your search.21,835 results
  • In Finland and the other Nordic countries there has been a vibrant discussion about a revision of the examination of grounds for refusal after Denmark decided in 1999 to stop applying ex officio examination. A similar procedure is used in the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).
  • The National Copyright Administration of the PRC (NCAC) plans to introduce a black list system to help crack down on online copyright infringement.
  • The revised Customs legislation prescribes the conditions under which the Customs Administration of Croatia can take measures against goods where there is justifiable suspicion that they violate IP rights. It also details the procedures to implement Customs measures in such cases.
  • Unlike some jurisdictions which allow any person to file a patent application, Canadian law provides that a patent application can only be made in the name of the inventor or a person who derives rights from the inventor. Until recently, the Patent Rules required that, in order to satisfy the Commissioner of Patents as to entitlement to file the application, the applicant was required to record evidence establishing a chain of title from the inventor. Under the new rules, effective June 2 2007, it is no longer necessary to record such evidence. The applicant is instead required to file a declaration setting forth the basis of its entitlement, normally within 15 months from the priority date or three months from the date of entry into the national phase. However, it is important to note that the underlying statutory requirements governing the entitlement to file a patent application have not changed. The changes in the rules relate to the requirements sufficient to satisfy the Commissioner to allow an application to proceed. Generally, it is still advisable at least to obtain a written assignment or other acknowledgement from the inventor that the applicant does indeed own the rights in the invention, and given the minimal cost, preferably to continue to record that document against the application order to minimize the risk of any future challenges to the ownership or validity of the resulting patent by ensuring that there is a clear chain of title from the original inventor to the current owner.
  • There has recently been a welcome development in relation to domain name dispute resolution in South Africa.
  • Sending warning letters with respect to infringement of patents is a common exercise, yet the practice with respect to formulating such letters differs widely in the EU.
  • In one of the most significant Australian decisions for many years on obviousness, the Australian High Court in Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 21 has increased the difficulty of striking down patents for obviousness.
  • At a web-based seminar organized by MIP in association with Fish & Richardson, practitioners discussed the impact of KSR v Teleflex
  • In Intel Corporation Inc v CPM United Kingdom Limited [2007] EWCA Civ 431, two issues faced the Court of Appeal: (1) whether a mere "bringing to mind" of an earlier mark with a reputation is enough to prevent a later registration; and (2) whether it is an infringement of a registered mark which has a reputation if a defendant uses, for dissimilar goods or services, a mark which merely "brings to mind" the registered mark.
  • Technological advances are putting copyright law under pressure in India. Poorvi Chothani assesses where the courts are likely to draw the line