Search results for

Herb Wamsley, executive director, Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)

On June 21 2005, the Secretary of Health issued Administrative Order Number 2005-0016, entitled General Policies and Guidelines Governing Brand Names of Products for Registration with the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD). BFAD officials are thought to believe that IP issues relating to brand names have impeded their ability to implement effectively the misbranding provisions of Republic Act 3720, known as the Food, Drugs and Devices and Cosmetics Act. The most important features of the new Order are:

Any truly international IP owner has to keep up-to-date with enforcement developments in the Americas, both North and South. In many areas, form patentability to copyright, the US courts have set standards that have been followed in the region and throughout the world. This year, the Supreme Court has produced two IP-related judgments, which MIP's Americas editor Sam Mamudi analyzes in the introduction. One focuses on the safe harbour for researchers who use patented compounds; the other on the topical issue of music downloads.

Emma Barraclough, Hong Kong and Sam Mamudi, New York

Ben Moshinsky, London

Sam Mamudi, New York

OHIM fees: key changes Service Current

Emma Barraclough, Hong Kong

According to criteria recently adopted by the Mexican Trade Mark Office (TMO), single invoices are appropriate and sufficient evidence to prove the use of a mark. However, it is important to point out that these criteria are contrary to doctrine and to article 62 of the Regulations of the Mexican Industrial Property Law, which establishes that a mark is in use when the goods or services covered by its registration are available in commerce in the amounts and manners that correspond to its nature.

For many years the English patents judges have striven to reduce costs and time to trial in patent cases. The streamlined procedure introduced in 2003 is the latest such move. It is proving a great success. Although the procedure was primarily intended for use in smaller patent cases, the flexibility afforded to judges in the way that they can manage cases has influenced the conduct of all patent litigation. Actions are now coming to trial in shorter periods of time (nine months to trial is not uncommon), and trials are shorter in duration. Two recent cases may be seen as indicators of the increasing use of the procedure, and a further shift toward more flexible and efficient patent litigation.