Search results for

Arturo Pérez-Orama and Arturo Pérez-Guerrero, of Guerrero Noble, Perez Orama & Guerrero Calderon in San Juan, describe how Puerto Rico’s attributive-deferred trade mark registration system works

John Chong and Lee Tatt Boon, of Skrine & Co in Kuala Lumpur, reveal how trade trade mark rights can be enforced under Malaysia’s Trade Descriptions Act

Chen Xuemin, of CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office in Beijing, discusses the best ways to stop trade mark counterfeiters in China

A recent Supreme Court decision in Japan will speed up patent litigation but innocent potential defendants should act early to avoid costly court battles. John A Tessensohn and Shusaku Yamamoto explain why

QuesteloOrbit, the information services provider, is proud to sponsor the Trade Mark Yearbook 2000. QuesteloOrbit is a world leader in Intellectual Property Information Services and provide information throughout the world to more than 30,000 intellectual property information users.

The end of the twentieth century saw patent owners queueing up to go to court to defend their rights. For some, the results were rewarding; for others, the risk didn’t pay off. James Nurton profiles some of 1999’s more interesting cases

Elvis is a powerful brand, maybe the most powerful. In the battle to exploit it, one man has travelled the world and questioned the limits of trade mark protection. James Nurton tells Sid Shaw’s story

Californian lawyer William Levin has reacted angrily to a judge's ruling that he acted "unethically" in a high profile trade mark litigation case. In the ruling on May 23, US district court judge Lourdes G Baird overturned a record $143 million damages award against Pfizer due to attorney misconduct by Levin & Hawes, which represented British medical company Trovan.

Claims drafted overseas and filed in Australia are often accepted by the Australian Patent Office without being adapted to local laws. In particular, claims that have been examined and accepted by European or US Patent Offices are often forwarded to Australian patent attorneys for submission as is, or with perhaps with only minor modifications. This is especially the case with modified examination, where an Australian patent may be granted on the basis of a patent granted in the United States, a European convention country, Canada or New Zealand, provided it uses exactly the same wording as the granted patent. This can lead to problems during litigation.

Rainforest Coffee Products Pte Ltd (RCPPL), which was held to have infringed the RAINFOREST CAFÉ trade mark of Rainforest Café, Inc (RCI) under the repealed Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 1992 edition) by the High Court last year, has failed in its appeal to the Court of Appeal (see the December 1999 issue of MIP under the same column for our report on the High Court decision).