Search results for

In Germany a declaratory action is an established instrument to react to an unwarranted warning letter. But whether it is necessary to send a counter-warning in response to a first warning letter so as to prevent an award of costs pursuant to S 93 ZPO (Code of Civil Procedure) when filing a declaratory action has up to now been a moot point. Different courts have handed down different decisions on this point. The District Court of Cologne confirmed the necessity of a counter-warning letter to prevent an award of costs pursuant to S 93 ZPO. Several Higher Regional Courts, however, denied the basic necessity of sending a counter-warning letter.

Section 40(3) of the Australian Patents Act 1990 sets out that the claims of a patent specification must be "fairly based on the matter described in the specification". Essentially, this means that the support for the full breadth of the claims must be found in the description. This is one of the most contentious areas of Australian patent law.

Turkey issued its patent law first in 1879, making it one of the earliest countries to do so, but unfortunately no further steps were taken until 1994, when the Turkish Patent Institute was founded. The Turkish Patent Decree Law, comparable to modern provisions, was published in 1995 and was followed by related regulations and several amendments.

Last year the Swedish Customs Service made more interventions against counterfeits than ever before. More than 280,000 items with a market value of some SEK127 million ($17.5 million) were seized. This is good news for trade mark owners and owners of other forms of IP. However, it must be assumed that only a tiny fraction of counterfeit goods are being detected and there is much to suggest that the importation of counterfeit goods will continue to increase and reach new, record-high levels. So the Swedish authorities are now devoting ever-increasing resources to hunting down counterfeiters.

For Singapore patent applications, it has been common practice to make voluntary amendments, in particular to the claims, at any time before payment of the grant fee. The patent applications could proceed to grant even though the amendments were not searched and examined.

On June Law 19/2006 to increase protection for IP rights was published in the Spanish Official Gazette. The Law establishes the rules of proceedings to facilitate the enforcement of different Community regulations. This Law transposes Directive 2004/48/CE regarding IP rights to guarantee a high level of protection, equivalent and homogeneous, in the internal market.

In the case of Shangri-La International Hotel Management et al (SLIHM), v Developers Group of Companies, Inc (DGCI) issued on March 31 2006, involving the trade marks Shangri-La and the S logo, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court which found SLIHM guilty of trade mark infringement, and ruled in favour of SLIHM.

Peter Spours and Dan McCurdy explain why treating your patents like currency and researching competitors' portfolios can help you build a successful IP strategy

Following the ECJ's decisions in Kit Kat, Thomson Life and Picaro, Carles Prat asks: is likelihood of confusion taking a break? Further clarification may come in the pending Opel case

Meir Perez Pugatch introduces a project organized jointly by MIP and the Stockholm Network, in association with Progress & Freedom Foundation, to assess the level of IP protection available for the IT industry in the world's major markets