Search results for

Indonesia's Supreme Court decided three much-anticipated IP cases in 2007. Lisa Yong and Zain Adnan explain what the decisions mean for rights holders in the country

Proposed amendments to China's patent and trade mark laws have caused much debate over the past month. Peter Ollier analyzes what is at stake

Using country names or emblems can lend authority to a marketing strategy. Jean-Michel Jost examines what is permitted in Switzerland, the UK and EU

IP owners risk jeopardizing their rights if they fail to protect their copyright and trade mark rights in online worlds such as Second Life

Pursuant to the amendments of the IP laws, which came into effect in Croatia on July 21 2007, an independent Appeal Board was established.

The concept of a trade mark will never be the same in Chile. To adapt and comply with international treaties signed by the Chilean government, a series of modifications have been made to the Chilean IP Law, including a new definition of a trade mark as "any sign that can be graphically represented, which is able to distinguish products or services". Therefore, not only words, logos, labels and colour combinations can be protected, but also sounds.

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.

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.

A recent patent assignment dispute in Taiwan addressed important issues.

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.