Search results for

Verimark is the market leader in South Africa in the field of television marketing in which so-called infomercials are used. Two of its products are Diamond Guard car care kit and Diamond Guard car polish, which have been widely advertised and sold since 1996. Throughout this period, Verimark used vehicles of different makes, but especially BMW cars, to demonstrate these products.

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

Why knowledge-based societies and economies need to share intellectual property information, and how they can do it. By Johan Renes of Vereenigde

Novartis is fighting a battle in India over the patentability of Glivec. Managing IP analyzes the impact of the case on the international pharmaceutical industry

When business strategy leads a foreign trade mark owner to contemplate expansion of its brand into the United States, the determination as to whether to move forward often depends on an assessment of the risks posed by similar third party marks already in use in the United States. When analyzing the potential impediments presented by third party marks, the foreign trade mark owner (with the advice of US trade mark counsel) would be prudent to consider not only exact trade marks and confusingly similar marks for the identical goods or services but also third party marks which cover arguably related goods and services.

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.

James Nurton, London