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
  • A recent decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) has sent some shock waves among IP lawyers in the Philippines. On June 4 2001, In-N-Out Burger Inc, a US corporation, filed an administrative complaint for unfair competition with damages before the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPPhil) against Sehwani Inc, owner of the Philippine registered trade mark In N Out, and its licensee Benita's Frites. On December 22 2003, the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), the adjudicating body of IPPhil, issued a decision, which declared In-N-Out an internationally well-known mark owned by In-N-Out Burger. It cancelled the registration of Sehwani for the identical trade mark but held that there was no unfair competition. The Court agreed that Sehwani had used the mark in good faith and so denied the claim for damages. Both parties appealed the decision to the Director General of IPPhil, who modified the decision of the BLA by declaring the existence of unfair competition, and awarding damages of P1.2 million ($24,000) to In-N-Out Burger Inc.
  • One of the most frequent obstacles that the prosecution of a Mexican trade mark application has to confront is that it may be objected to by the examiner for being descriptive or not sufficiently distinctive to be registered as a trade mark, or that it is indicative of the goods or services that it intends to protect. These types of objection are included in the Mexican Industrial Property Law; however the number of official actions objecting to trade marks for these reasons has notoriously increased recently.
  • Malaysia and the US recently wrapped up the second round of negotiations in respect of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the two countries. This round took place in Washington DC. The first round was held from June 12 to 16 in Penang, Malaysia.
  • September 6 2006, marked the 60th anniversary of the Korean Patent Attorneys Association (KPAA). Distinguished guests, including Korean Prime Minister Han Myung-Sook, reflected on the valuable contribution IP has played in the progression of Korea's economy, while distinguished members of the KPAA, such as Manho Song, received awards for their continued contribution to the development of IP in Korea.
  • It is a common refrain in the international business community that India has a poor track record of IP enforcement. However, if a recent decision of the Delhi High Court is anything to go by, weak IP enforcement is a thing of past. This is because the Delhi High Court awarded punitive damages in a copyright infringement case and held that the defendants will not be let off with merely an award of compensatory damages against them.
  • In the previous issue of Managing Intellectual Property, the implementation of the Bolar exemption in Ireland was discussed. It was stated that the exemption in Ireland only applies to experimental activities for generic drugs, excluding new medicinal products.
  • In Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co KG v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) the European Court of First Instance (CFI) confirmed OHIM´s ruling denying a likelihood of confusion between the pets marks Vitakraft and Vitacoat.
  • The National Copyright Administration of the People's Republic of China (NCAC) has launched a public consultation on the imposition of royalties on Karaoke establishments for use of musical works and music videos in their business. The NCAC has generally approved the centralized collection of royalties by the Music Copyright Society of China () and the China Audio & Video Collective Administration Association (in preparation) (). The proposed tariff is Rmb12 ($1.50) for one room for one day. The consultation will close on September 20 2006.
  • On June 12 2006 a new Industrial Property Code came into force in Mozambique. This article focuses on the main changes brought about by the Code in respect of trade marks, and the consequences of counterfeiting and other infringements of various rights.
  • A number of recent Australian cases have narrowed the ability of traders to claim a monopoly in a pure colour for use as a trade mark.