Search results for

James Nurton, London

Emma Barraclough, Hong Kong

Stéphanie Bodoni, London

As a general rule in the UAE, there is no synchronization between the Economic Department and/or the Municipalities (which regulate the grant of trade licences and approval of trade names in the different Emirates) and the Trade Mark Registry in terms of clearing the trade names against the Trade Marks Registry's database prior to granting approvals. As a result, trade marks often compete with company names as identifiers of the origin of goods and services. A common belief is that these signs confirm similar rights to the owner or registrant.

Licence agreements in Malaysia are generally governed by the Malaysian Trade Marks Act 1976 and the Contracts Act 1950. Nevertheless, the term "licence" is not expressed in the Trade Marks Act 1976. Instead the licensee is referred to as a "registered user".

Stéphanie Bodoni speaks to OHIM's new director of IP policy, Vincent O'Reilly, about OHIM trade mark practice, examination guidelines and the implementation of EU case law

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.