Search results for

In December 2004, the National Assembly passed amendments revising Korea's trade mark and design legislation. The amended Trade Mark Act and Design Protection Act are expected to become effective on July 1 2005.

In the last 10 years of India's experiments with TRIPs compliance in the domain of patents, the one section in the Act that was put to a major test is Section 3. In the past a critical amendment to Section 3 was the insertion of a new sub-section 3(k) by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002. This sub-section, for the first time in the history of India's patents law indirectly made at least certain aspects of computer program related inventions patentable. Accordingly, the amended law provided that what is not an invention is only "a mathematical method or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms".

Last month, I wrote about how the internet has changed the way we practise law. Other technological advancements also have changed the way we practise. In particular, technology has changed the way we conduct discovery in major IP cases and the way we try those cases.

April 1 2005 marked 10 years since the new Dutch Patents Act came into force. The old patents act of 1910 was phased out after a transition period of nine years on September 1 2004. After having been in force for 10 years, some of the upsides and downsides of the registration system under the Dutch Patents Act of 1995 (ROW 1995) have become clear.

In July 2004, the Beijing Administration for Industry and Commerce (AIC) issued a notice banning certain markets in Beijing (notorious for selling counterfeit clothing and accessories) from selling any goods bearing the brands Louis Vuitton, Prada, Chanel and Burberry. Any goods found there bearing any of these four brands would be deemed counterfeits on the assumption that any genuine versions would only be sold through exclusive outlets. Repeat offenders would be required to leave the market, and the authorities threatened to sanction the market owners if the rules were not followed.

In early 2005 the IP Division of the Tokyo High Court issued an opinion that helped settle a long-running employee invention dispute between Shuji Nakamura and Nichia. It also offered crucial pointers for companies deciding how to compensate their engineers. Yutaka Miyoshi of Mori Hamada & Matsumoto explains what the court's interpretation means for business

Brazil: The Office of the US Trade Representative said that it will extend its review of Brazil's copyright enforcement practices under the Generalized System of Preferences trade programme. Acting after receiving a petition from the International Intellectual Property Alliance, the Office said that its review will last until September 30. During that time, the Office said, it will examine the effectiveness of the action plan issued by Brazil's National Council to Combat Piracy and Intellectual Property Crimes.

James Nurton, London

E-commerce is booming in Japan, and it is inevitable that disputes over search-related advertising, meta-tags and sponsored links will arise. Alan N Sutin of Greenberg Traurig, LLP examines the lessons that can be learnt from recent cases in the US

Japan has made a series of reforms to its patent litigation system designed to make it far more attractive to litigants. Yoshikazu Iwase of Anderson Mori & Tomotsune sets out seven reasons why foreign companies should launch their infringement suits in Japan and outlines the key changes that have made patent litigation an attractive option