Search results for

Korea has become the 57th country to join the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the International Registration of Marks (Madrid Protocol) by depositing an instrument of ratification of the Protocol with the WIPO on January 10 2003. As of April 11 2003, three months after the instrument of ratification was deposited with the WIPO, the Madrid Protocol entered into force in Korea. Upon joining the Madrid Protocol, obtainment of a trade mark registration in Korea for foreign applicants is possible in two ways. An applicant can designate Korea as one of the target countries in his international application. Otherwise, he can file a separate national application to the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO).

The act of using a registered trade mark for the designated goods of that registered trade mark usually constitutes an act of infringement when performed by a third party with no direct rights thereto. Such acts are naturally subject to injunction and damage compensation. However, the case is not so clear-cut in the situation where the third party is importing trade marked goods which are genuine articles manufactured by one having the right to use the trade mark and legitimately purchased in another country (so-called parallel importation). In 1970, the Osaka District Court made it clear that parallel importation of trade marked goods may, in some circumstances, not constitute infringement. Similar decisions have since been issued by other lower courts.

Section 10 of the German Patent Act defines the constituent elements of contributory infringement as follows: a patent has apart from prohibiting direct infringement the further effect that a person not having the consent of the patentee shall be prohibited from supplying or offering to supply within the territory to which the Act applies a person, other than a person entitled to exploit the patented invention, with means relating to an essential element of such invention for exploiting the invention, where such person knows or it is obvious from the circumstances, that such means are suitable and intended for exploiting the invention. This does not apply when the means are staple commercial products, except where such person induces the person supplied to commit acts of direct infringement.

? Italy: The country has joined Greece and Denmark in implementing the EU copyright directive into its national law - with most other EU member states facing the prospect of being taken to the European Court of Justice.

Of mice and men

The island of Puerto Rico has failed to convince a WIPO panel it should have the rights to the disputed domain name puertorico.com.

Ralph Cunningham, Hong Kong

Malaysia has become the latest country in Asia to set up its own domain name dispute resolution policy to deal with disputes concerning the registration of country-code top-level domain names.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its State Street Bank decision in July 1998. Following this decision, a large number of computer-related andbusiness model patent applications were filed and granted inthe US. In contrast to that, it is an implicit requirement of the EPC that any invention must have a technical character. Thus, a scheme for, for example, organizing a commercial operation, being of a pure commercial nature, even if run on a computer, would lack technical character and would therefore be excluded from patentability. In the case of a PCT application based on a US patent application which relates to a computer-related or business model invention, this difference between the EPC and US patent law is a problem when entering into the European phase. Regarding search, the EPO examiner has the discretion to do a complete search, a partial search or even no search at all, depending on the extent to which the claims refer to technical subject-matter. In the last two cases, the EPO transmits a declaration under Rule 45 EPC (EPO Form 1507) stating that it was not possible to carry out a meaningful search into the state of the art. The following alternative steps are possible in such a situation:

The State Council announced on December 28 2002 the amendments to the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law which became effective on February 1 2003. The new amendments effectively extend the time limit within which PCT applications under Chapter I can enter the national phase in China to 30 months (from the priority date) from 20 months previously. In accordance with the amendments, the subject extension shall only apply to a PCT application designating China where its 20-month time limit has not expired as of February 1 2003.