Search results for

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.

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.