Search results for

In a criminal action for infringement or unfair competition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) conducts a preliminary investigation. If it is convinced that probable cause exists, it files a complaint (called the Information) before the proper regional trial court (RTC). In case the DOJ moves to withdraw the information, should the RTC grant this as a matter of course? And if the DOJ decides to file the same Information again, will this constitute double jeopardy? These are the main issues tackled in the case of Summerville General Merchandising & Co Inc vs Hon Antonio Eugenio Jr et al GR 163741, decided by the Supreme Court on August 7 2007.

In July the Italian Parliament examined two bills relating to the regulations for identification and protection of Italian products. Both the proposals follow faithfully the consolidated text on the "Made in Italy" label already presented in the previous legislature, which was unable to conclude its course due to the end of the legislature.

In a recent decision (Cofresco Frischhalterprodukte GmbH & Co KG v Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Reynolds Metals Company (Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan, June 14 2007), the Irish High Court dismissed an opposition to the registration of the trade mark Tub-Its. This case outlined the general principles relevant in Ireland to an assessment of the likelihood of confusion between marks registered in respect of similar goods. In particular, it considered the assessment of the degree of visual, aural and conceptual similarity between marks and the extent to which a judge may bring his or her own experience as a potential buyer to bear on the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

The growth of India's vibrant generic pharmaceutical industry is, in large part, the result of the government's earlier decision to grant only process patents to pharmaceuticals.

Just one click and in the blink of an eye I am in the European Patent Office (EPO) locating in Munich (Germany) or The Hague (the Netherlands) or in the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Alicante (Spain) but when I look out from the window I see an office backyard in Helsinki (Finland).

A monthly column devoted to IP curiosities and controversies, named in honour of John of Utynam - who received the world's first recorded patent in 1449

IP owners in Japan have traditionally been reluctant to take their disputes to court. But things are beginning to change. Tomokatsu Tsukahara, the new chief of the IP High Court, and Masami Ichikawa, presiding judge of the IP division at the Tokyo District Court, told Peter Ollier about the changing face of IP litigation in Japan

Andrew Hammond of Valea looks back at the lead-up to the EPO Enlarged Board’s recent decision regarding divisional applications and forward to its possible consequences

Three years ago the European Patent Office launched an innovative project to consider how the IP environment may evolve by 2025. What they discovered will have far-reaching consequences for IP users, owners and policy makers, says project leader Shirin Elahi

Peter Ollier, Hong Kong