Search results for

Singapore courts tend to adopt a strict approach to the exclusion of added subject matter when amending a patent or patent application. Hence, does a disclaimer, introduced into a patent claim in order to restore novelty over the prior art by excluding from its scope one or more particular examples in the prior art, constitute unallowable added subject matter under Singapore law if such a disclaimer has no basis in the application as originally filed?

In 2005 the Dubai Customs Authority announced its plan to set up a dedicated Intellectual Property Unit (IPU) to help curb the import, export and trans-shipment of counterfeit goods and products through all ports, including the Jebel Ali Free Zone Port. The first unit of its kind in the region, it has been finally implemented and the IPU is now ready to accept brand registrations and brand owners' complaints.

Recent conflicts between patent owners and third companies, in particular generic pharmaceutical companies, require the evolution of the Patent Law in Portugal to be considered.

MIP, in association with Finnegan Henderson, invited three brand owners as well as lawyers from the US, China and Germany to discuss how to protect and manage brands internationally. Topics covered included famous marks, new types of marks, the Madrid Protocol, transliterations and other means of protecting brands

On February 16 2007 the Lower District Court of Düsseldorf decided a trade mark case in an interlocutory injunction procedure regarding the use of the trade mark Oral Fixation for mint products.

At the second annual IPTEC meeting, held last month, technology licensors and licensees got together to share experiences and discuss business opportunities. James Nurton reports from Cannes, France

Article 10 of the Enforcement Directive (Directive 2004/48/EC) provides corrective measures to be taken with regard to goods that have been found to infringe an intellectual property right. Those measures include:

In this case, car maker Opel discovered in Germany scale models of Autec that reproduced the Opel Astra V8 Coupe car shape and the Opel Z logotype. Opel owns trade marks in Germany for cars and toys and consequently regarded these scale models as infringing its trade marks. The case was brought before the court and the German judge asked the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) (1) whether the Opel Z logotype on toys could constitute trade mark use and (2) whether the toy manufacturer was legitimate in raising the necessary indication of a characteristic of the product to avoid trade mark infringement.

Traditionally, Australian courts have apparently been reluctant to grant interlocutory injunctions for patent infringement, particularly in pharmaceutical cases. However, the Federal Court has recently acknowledged a change in this trend. In Merck & Co Inc v GenRx Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1407, the Federal Court considered an interlocutory injunction application by Merck to stop a subsidiary of Apotex from importing an alendronic acid compound covered by one of Merck's patents.

In October 2006, Senator Marina Riofrio proposed a bill to the National Congress aiming to introduce into the Argentine trade mark legislation a specific regulation for collective and certification trade marks. While these are not forbidden by current provisions, they are not expressly regulated in national legislation.