Search results for

The German Federal Supreme Court recently issued two decisions on the registrability of slogans (Radio von hier, Radio wie wir and Partner with the Best, both dated December 8 1999), which have terminated an ongoing controversy in Germany. According to these decisions, the requirements for distinctiveness of slogans are not any greater than for regular word marks.

Under Australian law it is possible to make post grant amendments to a patent either before the Commissioner of Patents, or in the Federal Court of Australia. Typically an application for amendment to the Federal Court is lodged when the patentee is about to commence infringement proceedings on the basis of advice that amendments are required to correct defects or to limit the relevance of prior art. In a recent case, Gambro Pty Ltd v Fresenius Medical Care South East Asia Pty Ltd, amendments were sought to limit the field of invention to the area of real interest fluids for dialysis and related procedures in order to strengthen the patentee´ s position in a cross claim for invalidity.

One of the most common questions asked by foreign clients is: "What is an Amparo suit?" Often the answer from most Mexican lawyers to avoid further explanation is: an appeal.

Rouse in new venture

In today's fast-moving markets, successful new products and services are the key to success

Deals

After several aborted attempts at legislation and a WTO hearing last year, India is now rushing through laws to overhaul its IP protection and comply with TRIPs.

As an outgrowth of the rule of Markman v Westview Instruments, Inc, 517 US 380 (1996) in which the US Supreme Court unanimously affirmed an en banc majority ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that patent claim construction is an issue of law for the court to determine, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, on November 8 1999 in TMPatents LP v International Business Machines Corp (53 USPQ 2d 1093, 1096-1104) ruled that a patentee whose patent claims were construed by a court in an earlier litigation is collaterally estopped to challenge that construction in a later suit involving the same patent. The ruling is one of first impression and has not yet been addressed by the Federal Circuit itself.

Monarch Company Inc (Monarch) owns the registered trade marks "KICKAPOO" and "KICKAPOO JOY JUICE" in Singapore for "non-alcoholic beverages" . Monarch´ s predecessors had licensed National Aerated Water Co Pte Ltd (NAW) to manufacture and sell carbonated bottled drinks under the trade mark "KICKAPOO JOY JUICE" in Singapore and Malaysia. The licence was immediately terminable by Monarch should NAW use any syllable or part of the term "KICKAPOO JOY JUICE" on any goods other than those belonging to Monarch. Subsequently, NAW started bottling and selling another soft drink called "KICK" for a third party, RCC. Upon discovering this, Monarch terminated the licence. NAW nevertheless continued to bottle and sell "KICK" and "KICKAPOO JOY JUICE" soft drinks.

There is no recent decision of the German Federal Patent or Supreme Court dealing with the patentability of plants or animals. However, issuance of the EC Directive on Biotechnological Inventions on July 6 1998 and the decision G1/98 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) on December 20 1999, will influence the interpretation of the provisions on the patentability of plants and animals.