Search results for

In order to protect and enhance the prestige of a licensed mark, trade mark owners, when drafting trade mark licence agreements, typically focus their attention on ensuring that they maintain the necessary level of approval over, and consistency in, the use of the licensed mark. Unfortunately, this desire often becomes a secondary concern as trade mark owners are blinded by the revenue-generating opportunities that may be derived from a proposed licence agreement and therefore, gloss over certain integral protections.

There are a number of instances where the monopoly under a patent is not absolute. Recently, the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (US-SFTA) required Singapore to amend the compulsory license provisions in the Singapore Patents Act to include a remedy for anti-competitive practices.

A recent decision by the Malaysian Courts in Shachihata & 18 others v Registrar of Industrial Designs & Ors, has in effect made redundant a recent circular issued by the Industrial Designs Registration Office (IDRO). The circular followed the advice of the Attorney General's Chamber and stated that designs registered under the UK Registered Designs Act 1949 which continued to have effect in Malaysia by virtue of their registration prior to the coming into force of the Industrial Designs Act 1996 (the Malaysian Act) on September 1 1999 would not be allowed to be extended beyond three five-year terms in Malaysia.

Italian law number 80/2005 introduced incisive measures to combat counterfeiting, including:

In a recent case concerning the admissibility of evidence and the construction of patents, the Irish Supreme Court endorsed the purposive approach to patent claim construction under Article 69 of the European Patent Convention and its Protocol. In upholding a decision by the High Court, the Supreme Court refused to permit the introduction of documentation used in arguments before foreign patent offices and in foreign proceedings concerning the scope of the patent at issue.

The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) holds German trade mark registrations for Fussball WM 2006 and WM 2006 for, inter alia, goods and services covering sporting events. These registrations were subject to cancellation actions, filed by Ferrero, who submitted that the marks lack distinctive character and are descriptive in relation to such goods and services; moreover, it was also alleged that the trade mark registrations were filed in bad faith.

IP owners who expect China's enforcement regime to mirror that in Europe and the US may be disappointed. But as Patrick Coyne and Ningling Wang of Finnegan Henderson explain, the Chinese system still provides plenty of enforcement opportunities for foreign investors willing to look beyond the newspaper headlines

Has China turned a corner in its commitment to protecting IP? A series of headline-grabbing court rulings at the end of 2005 in which Chinese judges upheld the rights of IP owners certainly suggests that foreign businesses can have far more success in enforcing their rights than is commonly believed. In the space of two months, Starbucks won an order for damages from would-be rival Shanghai Xing Ba Ke, Italian chocolate maker Ferrero stopped a copycat confectioner from selling look-alike products and five luxury goods companies persuaded a Beijing court to hold a landlord jointly liable for sales of fakes in his market.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) government has stepped up its action against software piracy. Over the past year, raids were successfully carried out and lead to a number of people being arrested, large numbers of PCs and pirated software confiscated and pirated goods destroyed, and fines imposed on various individuals and companies. This is reassuring for companies wanting to enter the UAE.

In a development that could have far reaching consequences, the Indian Patent Office ruled against Novartis' patent application for Gleevec, an anti-cancer drug. This decision marks the beginning of judicial scrutiny of India's new product patent law. If the Indian Patent Office fails to analyze the intricate provisions of law more carefully, as in this case, research-based pharmaceutical companies may stay away from the Indian market.