Search results for

Danone's spat with joint venture partner Wahaha has highlighted the risks of investing in China. Peter Ollier examines what went wrong

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.

The Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 2007 (TMA) was passed on January 22 2007. The TMA, Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules 2007 (TMR) and Trade Marks (International Registration) (Amendment) Rules 2007 has taken effect on July 2 2007. Highlights of the amendments are summarized below.

Before the amendments to the Federal Law of Administrative Proceeding (FLAP), rulings issued by the Mexican Patent and Trade Mark Office (IMPI) were challenged through Amparo suits before the Federal District Court (FDC). Decisions rendered by the FDC were further contested at the Federal Circuit Court (FCC), which would decide finally the controversy.

Many proprietors of trade marks descriptive of their product's get up or packaging are sceptical about registering their trade marks because the Registry jealously guards against the registration of such marks for the obvious reason that they are descriptive of the product packaging and as such are not distinctive and objectionable. Examples of such marks are Oval Tin, Red Box and Blue Band.

In Finland and the other Nordic countries there has been a vibrant discussion about a revision of the examination of grounds for refusal after Denmark decided in 1999 to stop applying ex officio examination. A similar procedure is used in the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).