Search results for

The Malaysian courts recently handed down their decision in Hu Kin Ai & Anor v Liew Yew Thoong [2005] 6 AMR 363. The plaintiffs had been selling watches in Malaysia and internationally since 1994 and are the registered owners of the trade mark "Blansacar with Five Stars Device" in respect of watches. They sued the defendant for trade mark infringement and passing off. The first plaintiff had also applied to register the Chinese characters "Wu Xing Shang Jiang" (meaning Five Star General) in respect of watches.

Walter Maiwald and Volker Hamm explain how, thanks to changes in the courts and the EU enforcement directive, Germany has ceased to be a paradise for patent infringers and become an upholder of patent rights

Customs inspections are of primary importance in protecting IP rights in Europe. In fact, Customs authorities are responsible for 70% of all seizures of alleged infringing goods.

Stéphanie Bodoni, London

Music rights owners will be pleased to read that the Irish courts have once again struck a blow to those involved in the illegal uploading of music. In January, Mr Justice Kelly of the Commercial Court, Ireland's new Court that has specialist expertise in IP matters, ordered that the national telecommunications provider and two other internet service providers give details of 49 of their internet subscribers to four record companies for the purposes of bringing copyright infringement proceedings.

Although Europe has a centralized system for filing and granting patents, "European patents" don't exist. Once a European patent application is granted, it falls apart in a bundle of national patents. This makes it difficult for patent holders to enforce their patent rights against an (assumed) infringer active in different countries, as court proceedings should be started in all relevant countries.

The Federal Court in Wm Wrigley Jr Company v Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd ([2005] FCA 1035) produced a sobering reminder of the need to review and amend Australian patent applications based on corresponding foreign applications.

Recent decisions in the UK and Australia have shown diverging views of what novelty requires. Justin Watts and Peter Chalk ask whether some of the tests applied by the courts to check whether prior art is novelty-destroying are going a step too far

In a recent Australian case, the courts refused a patent for a business method because the invention did not benefit society as a whole. James Walsh and Robert Cooper examine business method patents and consider whether the greater good is a valid reason for refusal

Andrea Lensing-Kramer and Peter Ruess discuss the peculiarities of an efficient yet often unknown tool for protecting intellectual property rights in Germany