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 21,807 results that match your search.21,807 results
  • Beginning July 1 2007, three important changes to the Korean Patent Act will become effective.
  • In the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) issued on February 2 2007 in McDonald's Corporation v Macjoy Fastfood Corporation, the SC employed the dominancy test to affirm the decision of the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPhil) that the predominant features of the McDonald's marks (namely its corporate logo known as the golden arches or M design, McDonald's, McChicken, MacFries, BigMac, McDo, McSpaghetti, McSnack, and Mc), are the "M" logo design, and the prefixes "Mc" and "Mac", and found confusing similarity between the McDonald's marks and the opposed Macjoy and device mark, especially since both are used on the same products falling under Classes 29 and 30.
  • About one year ago Russian Customs drastically intensified its efforts in intercepting the illegal transit of goods across the border. Spurred by the World Customs Organization, the Russian Customs will make the year 2007 the year of combating counterfeiting. There are many reasons for that. The Russian Customs acknowledge that intellectual property rights infringement is the most frequent occurrence among economic offences. According to the Customs, the most frequently stopped goods at the border are confectionery, sports clothes and shoes, perfumes and household chemistry. This means that trade mark infringement is the biggest problem. Competing with trade marks are copyrighted products, such as DVDs and Cds. Piracy of videocassettes is becoming less frequent due to the dwindling demand for video tape gadgetry.
  • The New Zealand government is proposing significant amendments to the Copyright Act 1994 (the Act) with the Copyright (New Technologies and Performer's Rights) Amendment Bill (the Bill).
  • In the case of SAP (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v I World HRM Net Sdn Bhd [2006] 2 MLJ 678 an application for an interlocutory injunction was made by SAP, the German software company, and its local exclusive distributor after they had sued the defendants for copyright infringement. The defendants had an individual end user licence agreement for the SAP R/3 software. The plaintiffs had alleged that the defendants had breached the licence agreement by providing service bureau applications to third parties without the plaintiffs' consent and by reproducing and downloading the software on computers/servers of third parties.
  • Before the Linkage Regulation in Mexico, the health authorities granted marketing authorizations for pharmaceuticals when the applicant complied with the regulatory requirements, without reviewing possible violations of patent rights. In short, marketing authorizations granted in the past for patented pharmaceutical products to non-authorized third parties were government authorizations to infringe patents.
  • The German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) recently issued a decision (Haftetikett), which significantly increases the legal burden on an employer to effectively claim a patent right originating from an employee's invention.
  • An Italian court recently issued a long-awaited decision in which it recognized copyright protection for designs (a chair and a lamp). This is a landmark decision.
  • In last five years, the Indian parliament has amended the patent law twice. Despite the government's efforts to make the patent law compliant with the TRIPs Agreement, the international community's qualms about India's patent law remains unchanged. The debate on TRIPs compliance is heating up again since the publication of a report on various patent law issues by a government-appointed panel of experts.
  • On December 30 2006, the Supreme People's Court issued the Explanation on Several Issues on the Application of Law in Adjudicating Civil Unfair Competition Cases. It contains important interpretations of various terms used in China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The Explanations came into effect on February 1 2007.