Search results for

The approach of 2005 and TRIPs Agreement conformity has proved to be a great motivator in Asian jurisdictions. A flood of new patent legislation has entered the statute books. Some countries already comply with the agreement. Others have a bit more work to do, reports Ralph Cunningham

Jane Mutimear examines how the courts in Germany and the UK, as well as OHIM, have treated trade mark applications arising from generic domain names

Artistic copyright has sometimes been seen as the Cinderella of copyright law. Simon Stokes argues that recent artistic copyright cases in Europe and North America are pushing copyright law to its limits. This has implications for the creative industries generally.

Fifth International Publishers Association Copyright Conference, February 20-22 2002, Accra, Ghana. Details at www.ipa-uie.org, or the Ghana Book Publishers Association, email: ipa2002@ghana.com

Despite harmonization, there remain significant differences in the way freelancers are treated in the EU member states. Les Christy and Susannah Kendall contrast the situation in common law and civil law jurisdictions and examine how the situation is likely to change in the future

New copyright legislation emphasizes China’s commitment to its international obligations. While overseas copyright owners should welcome the new law, enforcement of their rights will remain a challenge, argue Luke Minford and Stella Li

Guylyn R Cummins, Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP

"We are also seeing companies getting back to basics and building their core brands that consumers already know"

The directive concerning legal protection of biotechnological inventions (98/44/EC) has not been annulled according to a judgment made by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on October 9 2001 (C 377/98).

Pharmacia Corp, GD Searle & Co and Pfizer Inc (the patentees) were the proprietors of European Patent (UK) 0 679 157 (the patent) relating to chemical compounds having use as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The patentees appealed the findings at trial that the patent was invalid and not infringed by the defendants, Merck & Co Inc and Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd (Merck). On appeal, the finding of invalidity was confirmed (Court of Appeal, December 14 2001). Merck's chemical compound, sold under the name Vioxx, was held to fall within claim 1 and would have infringed if the claim had not been held invalid.