Search results for

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

James Nurton, London

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

Two years after the failure of the EU computer implemented inventions directive, the debate over protecting software is as passionate as ever

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

The House of Lords, the UK's highest court, is to hear arguments in a controversial dispute over a stent patent

Recent developments in two long-running cases in Australia have fuelled the debate about IP owners' ability to register and enforce colour trade marks in the country

The value of fake goods traded internationally could be as high as $200 billion according to a preliminary report published by the OECD on June 4

The Kaohsiung District Court of Taiwan rendered a final decision in April 2007 in a dispute between the World Trade Centers Association, Inc (WTCA) and Kaohsiung World Trade Center Co Ltd (KWTC), a local company. In the case, KWTC's use of the term World Trade Center and its Chinese equivalent as part of its company name was held by the Court to be a deceptive or obviously unfair action that would affect trade order, and was therefore in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. The Court said that, although the trade mark registration owned by WTCA in Taiwan is the Chinese equivalent for Taipei World Trade Center, the three words World Trade Center contained in the mark are sufficiently distinctive to be a source identifier. The Court further indicated that, while KWTC's use of World Trade Center as part of its company name does not constitute trade mark infringement, such use would mislead the public into thinking that KWTC is affiliated with WTCA and would therefore engender marketplace confusion. KWTC was accordingly ordered to stop using World Trade Center and its Chinese equivalent as part of its company name and to change its Chinese company name registered with the authorities.

The debate concerning the need to clarify the secrecy legislation surrounding joint research projects has been going on for several years in Sweden without resulting in any legal amendments to safeguard secrecy. However, at the same time as the Seventh EU Research Framework Programme is now in force, the debate has finally reached a definitive solution.