Search results for

Emma Barraclough, London

Trade mark owners generally agree that trade marks should have strong protection and that well-known marks deserve more.

Under the Singapore Patents Act, a divisional application must be filed before grant conditions are met for the parent application. In any event, the divisional application must be filed before the parent application has been refused, withdrawn or treated as having been abandoned.

Gold (and, less so, platinum) glitters and its shining is visible from afar. Trade marks, even though they are not precious metals, equally enjoy better visibility and are more conspicuous when they include those magic words. Both the words gold and platinum denote something very safe and valuable. No wonder then that a trade mark applicant chose the word "platinum".

The Labour Contract Law of China was adopted on June 29 2007 and promulgated on the same date. It will come into effect on January 1 2008.

In a dangerous development for patent holders, the Australian government, in an adventurous move, has accepted the recommendation of the Australian Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) to introduce an experimental use exemption (EUE) under the Patents Act. To be clear, this is not an amendment to the law, but constitutes the introduction of a statutory EUE where previously none existed. Moreover, the notion of an EUE does not feature in our precedent law.

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.