Search results for

Recent French and Community case law in trade marks concur in emphasizing the prevalence of intellectual over aural and visual comparisons.

The latest developments in the patent reform debate in the US at a glance

Yamaha Motors has won the highest damages ever awarded to a foreign company for trade mark infringement in China

A patent for methods of internet shopping with a one-stop shopping cart was sold for £2.25 million ($4.45 million) at an auction in London last month

Emma Barraclough, London

A recent case highlights the difference in approach between the English courts and the European Patent Office (EPO) to second medical use claims, and raises the question as to whether English practice is compatible with that in the EPO.

Section 44(e) of the US Trade Mark Act affords a foreign trade mark owner the luxury of relying on a registration granted by the applicant's country of origin as a basis for registration in the United States. The Section 44(e) filing allows the applicant to secure a trade mark registration without demonstrating use of the mark in the United States, as all that is needed is an assertion of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.

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.

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.