Search results for

MP3.com receives Universal condemnation

Michel Jolicoeur and Nicola Tarantini, of Racheli & C SpA, in Milan, explain how to put together effective trade mark licences

For two decades, Canada has lagged behind its major trading partners in patenting higher life forms. Steve Garland and Kathy Lipic explain how this situation has changed, following a landmark Federal Court decision

Julia Phillpot Anti-piracy manager Microsoft UK

Michael Lantos, of Danubia Patent & Trademark Attorneys in Budapest, reviews the status of trade mark protection in Hungary and makes some predictions for the future

Two of the paint industry´ s leading manufacturers were recently engaged in a court battle over the use of the phrase "3 in 1". Nippon Paint (Nippon) had alleged that its rival, ICI Paints (ICI), had been passing off products that were confusingly similar to its "Nippon 3 in 1" interior wall paint.

In a recent case, the English Court of Appeal looked again at the issue of the purposive construction of a patent (Wheatley & Anor v Drillsafe Ltd & Anors). Wheatley´ s patent claimed a centre-less hole cutter, which is a hole cutter with no central drill for forming a pilot hole. This is especially suitable for forming threaded holes in, for example, underground petrol tanks without the need to open the tanks. The defendants´ drill had a semi-penetrating retractable probe within the cutting tool to prevent the cutter from wandering. The defendants argued that this probe meant that the drill was a variant which fell outside the claims of the patent.

In Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters & anr (unreported: 27/07/2000), the claimant ran the US "Crate & Barrel" stores selling household goods and furniture, and also owned UK and Community-wide trade marks. The first defendant owned a company (the second defendant) which had a shop in Ireland called "Crate & Barrel". The defendants had a website to sell their products and advertised in Homes & Gardens magazine which has a UK and Republic of Ireland based circulation. The claimant sought summary judgment in the UK alleging infringement of its UK trade mark. The defendants intended to sell only to and in the Irish market and therefore argued that it was not using the trade mark "in the course of trade" in the UK.

First you lose $20 million. Then you get it back. Then you lose it again. That is the scenario facing an Indianapolis company, Biomet, which makes orthopedic products.

The jury trial is one of the most challenging aspects of the US patent system for overseas users. James W Gould reveals the key issues litigants need to address when choosing between jury and bench trials