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 21,697 results that match your search.21,697 results
  • Tom Thomson, executive director, Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights
  • In this age of the internet, it is standard practice to search the world wide web using the various search engines such as Yahoo and Google. Did you know however that it is incorrect, indeed objectionable, in trade mark terms to "yahoo" or "google" someone or something – that is, to use these trade marks as verbs thus potentially rendering them generic and the trade mark registrations liable to "death by genericide". Examples of such generic use at one time or another are "hoover", "sellotape" and "escalator".
  • Up until recently, in the UAE, an agency agreement had to be registered at the Commercial Agencies Register at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to be enforceable. This had created a lot of difficulties in the past for foreign companies in terminating agreements where the local agent was not performing under the agreement, as the commercial agency law provided substantial protection to the commercial agents, especially in the context of termination. For example, if the principal terminated an unlimited term commercial agency without cause, the principal was obliged to compensate the agent.
  • The law requires the use of a registered trade mark in Ukraine. To maintain a registration, a trade mark must be used in respect of the goods and/or services for which it has been registered. The definition of the effective use of a trade mark has been detailed to comprise sale, offering for sale, import and export of the goods bearing a trade mark. Otherwise the registration becomes vulnerable to cancellation upon request by a third party.
  • Counterfeiting is widely seen as a major challenge for IP owners wishing to protect their investment in R&D and marketing in China. The large counterfeiting market is a big problem for brand owners and will most likely remain so for a long time, in spite of the efforts of the Chinese government to strengthen brand owners' opportunities to enforce their rights in China.
  • Over the past three years, Turkish national registrations from international trade mark applications under the Madrid Protocol have increased by 30%, reaching 7,750 in 2005.
  • Act 29/2006, of July 26, on Guarantees for and Rational Use of Medicinal and Health Products, which supersedes and repeals the former Medicinal Products Act 1990, was published in the Official State Gazette on July 27 2006. The new Act amends Patents Act Article 52.1, which provides for the exceptions to patent rights, that is cases in which a patent is not effective. The wording is:
  • In view of the changes in the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) that will come into force on April 1 2007, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore recently issued a consultation paper which proposed concurrent changes to the Singapore Patents Act and Rules on April 1 2007 to align with the changes in the PCT. In addition, there is a repeal of provisions in the Singapore Patents Act dealing with restrictive covenants.
  • The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) has released guidelines for patent claims covering methods of treatment and Swiss-style claims on its website (www.iponz.govt.nz). They have been issued in an attempt to give applicants some clarity about what may or may not be patentable. In its guidelines, IPONZ has said that each patent application will be considered on its merits and that the guidelines are simply that: guidelines.
  • On July 21 2006 the Polish Parliament was served with a proposal of changes to the Law on Industrial Property. The proposed changes refer to several aspects of IP protection in Poland, including procedural regulations regarding litigation proceedings before the Polish Patent Office. The potential implementation of the proposed changes will have a significant impact on the regulations concerning the provision of evidence in litigation proceedings before the Patent Office.