Search results for

The rules governing intellectual property in the five countries of the Andean Pact have been revised. Cecilia Falconi examines the key aspects of the new legislation.

In preparation for joining the WTO, China has amended its patent law. Jiwen Chen says the changes will enhance protection and simplify application procedures and enforcement

As the UDRP approaches its first birthday, Jane Mutimear asks: should we wish it many happy returns?

Enforcement of rights in China has not had a good press. But, as James W Gould reports, improved institutions and procedures mean that rights owners can now have more confidence in the courts

Bruce A Lehman President, International Intellectual Property Institute Washington DC

The Andean Community (Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia) has now issued the new Decision 486 (the Decision), with 280 articles, that replaces Decision 344, covering a Common Andean Industrial Property Code. The Decision does not amend the prior legislation, but puts out an encyclopedic and repetitive text of which the salient chapters are one on integrated circuits and another on unfair competition. We shall here focus en the latter.

Last month, German pharmaceutical company Bayer became the latest multinational to set-up a research and development centre in Shanghai. Its presence brings the total of foreign investors in the area to 32, a figure that includes some of the world's biggest high-tech powerhouses. The invasion is prompting a major overhaul of IP protection

An October 25 2000 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit re-emphasizes the importance of the so-called "written description" requirement of United States patent law. In Purdue Pharma LP v Faulding Inc, 56 USPQ 2d 1481 (Fed Cir 2000), the Court affirmed a district court ruling invalidating several claims because nothing in the underlying patent application clearly and necessarily described the subject matter later embodied in its issued claims, saying:

Two of the paint industry´ s leading manufacturers were recently engaged in a court battle over the use of the phrase "3 in 1". Nippon Paint (Nippon) had alleged that its rival, ICI Paints (ICI), had been passing off products that were confusingly similar to its "Nippon 3 in 1" interior wall paint.

In Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters & anr (unreported: 27/07/2000), the claimant ran the US "Crate & Barrel" stores selling household goods and furniture, and also owned UK and Community-wide trade marks. The first defendant owned a company (the second defendant) which had a shop in Ireland called "Crate & Barrel". The defendants had a website to sell their products and advertised in Homes & Gardens magazine which has a UK and Republic of Ireland based circulation. The claimant sought summary judgment in the UK alleging infringement of its UK trade mark. The defendants intended to sell only to and in the Irish market and therefore argued that it was not using the trade mark "in the course of trade" in the UK.