Search results for

Comparative advertising in Mexico is mainly regulated by the Federal Law on Consumer Protection (FLCP) and the Mexican Industrial Property Law (IPL). The FLCP protects consumers against deceptive and abusive advertisements. Article 32 establishes that the information or advertisement with respect to goods or services which is made known by any means, must be truthful, liable to be verified and exempt of texts, dialogues, sounds, images or any other descriptions which induce or may induce to error or confusion due to an inaccuracy of said texts. Since this provision deals with advertising in general, it is applicable to a case of comparative advertising when that is false.

United States district courts have reached different conclusions as to the effect of foreign patent proceedings on US patent litigation.

Moves, Deals, Developments

The Internet has been created and has developed without specific regulations and its creators maintain that its absolute anarchy is an essential condition for its existence. In the absence of regulations, the Internet is regarded as a conquest territory and it frequently happens that the entrepreneurs find out that their trade marks have been registered as domain names by third parties, competitors and non-competitors.

Sending rockets into space is not NASA’s only role, Robert Norwood, director of its commercial programmes division, tells Ralph Cunningham.

When Charlene Barshefsky arrives in China in mid-February for the US Trade Representative’s regular visit, she will have her hands full.

Car maker Porsche has taken action against no less than 130 Internet domain names using its trade marks in an in rem suit.

Music copyright and the Internet

The EU has taken a big leap towards implementing WIPO’s two December 1996 copyright treaties.

Recent patent court decisions and also rules of patent practice issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) are changing how the wide spectrum of entities that use computers to conduct fiscal businesses will operate them in the United States, because they now can obtain and assert reliable patent rights against competitors. This legal landscape is evolving from court decisions spanning more than 20 years that define a patent-based framework within which computer technology in particular, computer software can be protected. Software owners have sought such protection because of: (a) recognized limitations in copyrights which protect expression (ie literal lines of computer code), but not ideas (ie the constructs software implement); (b) the substantial financial value software gained during the same decades; and (c) the continuing growth of the businesses that are dependent on computers. It is estimated that by 2001 Internet commerce in the United States will be worth $200 billion. Initially patent protection was not sought for software because of the amount of time involved in obtaining patent rights and also the fact that the Supreme Court (the US court of last resort) has consistently held that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are unpatentable subject matter. Software owners perceived tremendous commercial benefits from patent rights, and these perceptions sustained efforts to seek enforceable frameworks for obtaining reliable patent rights.