Search results for

Emma Barraclough, Hong Kong

According to the Romanian provisions, a trade mark registration can be cancelled if, within a continuous period of five years, the mark has not been put to genuine use on the Romanian territory in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, and there are no proper reasons for non-use. Not using the trade mark for an uninterrupted five-year period implies that the trade mark is no longer capable of fulfilling one of its basic functions: to differentiate the goods and services of a natural or legal person from those of other natural or legal persons. Thanks to the non-use, the trade mark does not allow the consumers to easily and quickly choose a verified product, which earned a reputation, the competition function no longer being fulfilled.

The Measures on Protection of IPR at Exhibitions (the Measures) were jointly promulgated by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC), State Administration of Industry & Commerce (SAIC), State Copyright Bureau (SCB) and the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) (collectively the IP authorities) on January 10 2006. They took effect on March 1 2006. By strengthening protection of IP, China hopes to promote the healthy development of the exhibition industry.

The Paul Manufacturing Co Case (2006 (32) PTC 285 (Del) came up before the Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian constitution. The petitioner's prayer was to issue a writ of certiorari or a direction to quash the trade mark registration No 1280913 granted under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The usual procedure is that the Trade Marks Registrar's decisions and orders are appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (the IPAB). In this case too, the petitioner filed a rectification application at the IPAB. However, interestingly, the IPAB has been dysfunctional for several months because of the delay in appointing a technical member. The petitioner therefore contended that the IPAB was not functioning and that the High Court had extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue a certiorari to quash the order granting the trade mark registration.

Following two reviews of Australia's intellectual property legislation, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006 was introduced into the Australian Parliament on March 30 2006. If passed in its present form, the Bill will make a number of changes to Australia's legislation, particularly to the Trade Marks Act 1995 and the Patents Act 1990.

The Japanese government has introduced a regional collective trade mark system to boost the value of the country's agricultural exports. John Tessensohn and Shusaku Yamamoto explain how it will work and who will benefit

News and photos from MIP's third annual Brand Management Forum, featuring leading in-house counsel and trade mark regulators, held in London at the end of March

The growth in applications has raised more questions about the qualification requirements for patent attorneys in Turkey. Only patent attorneys are statutorily allowed to represent foreign applicants with regard to patents before the Turkish Patent Institute (TPI).

The Swedish Supreme Court has recently (February 1 2006) delivered a judgment in an interesting trade mark case, which concerns how and when a registered trade mark can be cancelled for non-use, and in particular the date from which the period of non-use of a trade mark must be calculated.

On March 1 2006, US pharmaceutical company Pfizer sued the Philippine International Trading Corp (PITC) and the Bureau of Food And Drugs (BFAD) before the Regional Trial Court of Makati Branch 61. It accused them of infringing its patent for its anti-hypertension drug Norvasc (which has the generic name amlodipine besylate), after the PITC imported some samples of a similar drug sold by Pfizer in India (under the brand name Amlogard) and submitted the samples to the BFAD for testing and product registration. Pfizer's Philippine patent expires in June 2007. The PITC filed a Ps1.5 million ($30,000) countersuit against Pfizer, claiming that the US company was attempting to stop the government from importing cheap medicine.