Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 21,737 results that match your search.21,737 results
  • Proving registration in bad faith is not enough to retrieve a domain name. Trade mark owners must also show that the name was used in bad faith, which includes non-use, argues Philippe Rodhain
  • Corporate interests and new technology can complicate brand protection strategies in sponsorship deals. James Felt illustrates the traps and offers tips to navigate the branding maze
  • The CSU v Xerox case focused the antitrust bar's attention on the Federal Circuit and the fact that it was creating antitrust policy, albeit under the umbrella of patent law
  • A recent Court of Appeal decision has added a twist in the tale of a copyright dispute between two rival bakkwa (barbecued sweetmeat) sellers.
  • In a September 13 2002 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a ruling of the USPTO Board of Appeals and Interferences that the USPTO has the power to reject a patent application on the grounds of what it termed "prosecution laches".
  • The forthcoming entry of Russia into the WTO was the reason for perfecting national legislation in the field of IP rights protection.
  • The Soribada site (http://www.soribada.com), similar to Napster, connects a plurality of users with each other who log on to the server by the P2P (peer to peer) system to upload and download MP3 (MPEG layer 3) music files.
  • Issues at the intersection of IP and antitrust are increasingly high profile, driven by developments in technology and more zealous competition watchdogs. Ingrid Hering examines the US and EU approaches
  • The issue whether a re-shot film constitutes infringement of copyright in a cinematograph film came up for consideration for the first time before the High Court of Mumbai in a very interesting matrix of facts.
  • As reported in the December 2000/January 2001 issue of MIP, a disclaimer is a tool accepted under the German Patent Act and the EPC to distinguish the claimed subject matter from a prior art disclosure by excising from the scope of claim the novelty- destroying disclosure. However, disclaimers were considered admissible in specific situations only: