Search results for

James Nurton, London

A Europe-wide patent litigation system could be agreed by the end of 2008

Can IP owners take action against landlords who allow counterfeits to be sold on their premises? Reports from seven jurisdictions

In our June, 2007 briefing, we explained that patent trials are almost always open to the public. Of course, trials are the culmination of many months, sometimes years, of pre-trial discovery, including the production of documents containing confidential information and the deposition of witnesses. While it's generally known that such pre-trial discovery is not open to the public, a question often asked, particularly by non-US entities involved in US litigation, is whether the opposing in-house counsel will have access to the confidential documents produced and deposition testimony given in the litigation.

In August 2007, the Chinese Trade Mark Office (CTMO) circulated its draft changes to the Trade Mark Law for comments. According to this draft, there will be substantial changes to the current law, including the following proposals to expedite application and registration procedures:

DR-CAFTA has brought about important changes in Honduran IP law. Decree 16-2006 which contains the Law of Application of the Free Trade Treaty (DR-CAFTA) states the Law's objective of protecting, promoting and strengthening the legal security for the different categories of IP rights contained in the legal instruments.

On the occasion of our last article of the year 2007, we thought it might be useful to compare past and present.

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.

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.

On October 22 2007 the Australian government eased our duty of disclosure provisions.