Search results for

Gold (and, less so, platinum) glitters and its shining is visible from afar. Trade marks, even though they are not precious metals, equally enjoy better visibility and are more conspicuous when they include those magic words. Both the words gold and platinum denote something very safe and valuable. No wonder then that a trade mark applicant chose the word "platinum".

The doctrine of double patenting in Canada prevents the issuance of two patents covering the same invention. This doctrine has taken on greater significance since the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Whirlpool Corp v Camco Inc, [2000] 2 SCR 1067. In this case, the Court identified two types of double patenting, one in which the claims are "identical or coterminous", and another in which the claims are not "patentably distinct" (also known as "obviousness" double patenting). Following this decision, the Patent Office has been issuing rejections raised on the second type with increasing frequency where co-pending applications have common ownership.

Sending a warning notice to an infringer's business partners could constitute unfair competition. Hiroko Yamamoto of Mori Hamada & Matsumoto explains how this situation can be avoided

In a first leading decision, the Austrian Supreme Court has clarified several issues relating to keyword advertising. The decision is about the trade mark and trade name Wein & Co. (Wine & Co), a famous chain of wine stores and wine bars in Austria. A competitor bought 815 keywords with Google, including Wein & Co. The complaint was against the purchaser not Google.

There are many benefits on offer for companies that disclose information about their intellectual assets, say Eiichi Yamamoto and Toshimichi Matano of Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

KSR relaxed the standard for invalidating patents on the grounds of obviousness. But how has it been applied so far? John Isacson looks at the lessons for applicants

In a criminal action for infringement or unfair competition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) conducts a preliminary investigation. If it is convinced that probable cause exists, it files a complaint (called the Information) before the proper regional trial court (RTC). In case the DOJ moves to withdraw the information, should the RTC grant this as a matter of course? And if the DOJ decides to file the same Information again, will this constitute double jeopardy? These are the main issues tackled in the case of Summerville General Merchandising & Co Inc vs Hon Antonio Eugenio Jr et al GR 163741, decided by the Supreme Court on August 7 2007.

In July the Italian Parliament examined two bills relating to the regulations for identification and protection of Italian products. Both the proposals follow faithfully the consolidated text on the "Made in Italy" label already presented in the previous legislature, which was unable to conclude its course due to the end of the legislature.

In a recent decision (Cofresco Frischhalterprodukte GmbH & Co KG v Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Reynolds Metals Company (Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan, June 14 2007), the Irish High Court dismissed an opposition to the registration of the trade mark Tub-Its. This case outlined the general principles relevant in Ireland to an assessment of the likelihood of confusion between marks registered in respect of similar goods. In particular, it considered the assessment of the degree of visual, aural and conceptual similarity between marks and the extent to which a judge may bring his or her own experience as a potential buyer to bear on the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

The growth of India's vibrant generic pharmaceutical industry is, in large part, the result of the government's earlier decision to grant only process patents to pharmaceuticals.