Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 22,054 results that match your search.22,054 results
  • An Indian government committee has concluded that there is no need to change the laws that deal with drug registration in the country
  • Emma Barraclough, London
  • 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
  • Turkey has ratified the UPOV Convention (1991 Act), the international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants. It was accepted by Turkish parliament and published as Law number 5601 in the Official Gazette on March 17 2007.
  • 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.
  • In one of the most significant Australian decisions for many years on obviousness, the Australian High Court in Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 21 has increased the difficulty of striking down patents for obviousness.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • At a web-based seminar organized by MIP in association with Fish & Richardson, practitioners discussed the impact of KSR v Teleflex
  • Technological advances are putting copyright law under pressure in India. Poorvi Chothani assesses where the courts are likely to draw the line