Search results for

After Thailand's Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) recently announced that it would abolish the recordation system for well-known trade marks, many questions about the status of well-known marks remained unanswered. This article will discuss whether well-known marks are still protected in Thailand, who has authority to determine whether a mark is well known, and whether a similar recordation system will be reestablished in the future.

On December 8 2015, the Supreme Court, in a decision in four consolidated cases (GR Nos 209271, 209276, 209301 and 209430) permanently enjoined the field testing for Bt talong (genetically modified eggplant), declared the Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No 08, series of 2002 (DAO 08) as null and void, and temporarily enjoined any application for contained use, field testing, propagation, commercialisation, and importation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) until a new administrative order is promulgated in accordance with the law.

The Patent Office considered an appeal filed by Brouwerij L Huygne company, Belgium on the decision of the examiner to refuse recognition in Russia of International Registration number 1141648 for goods in class 32 and services in class 43. The trade mark according to the International Registration is a depiction of a decapitation device, the guillotine, brought into general use by Dr Guillotin. For those who do not immediately understand there is also the word element "La Guillotine" across the device.

The 2015 Patent Act amendment changed the long-established rule, and determined that the employer may select in advance whether the right to obtain a patent for an employee invention belongs to the employer or the employee when the invention is made. The amendment comes into force on April 1 2016.

The patent law regime in Singapore is governed by the Patents Act (Chapter 221) which is based generally on the UK Patents Act 1977. The Patents Act was amended in 1995 to delete Section 13(2) of the Patents Act 1994 [UK Patents 1977, S 1(2)] which declared that certain subject matter, such as "a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a program for a computer", are not inventions for the purposes of the Act and are therefore not patentable. This left the law open for including business methods and computer implemented inventions as patentable subject matter.

It is established practice at the European Patent Office to offer accelerated processing of patent applications simply on request by the applicant, without the need to pay additional fees. This is in contrast to other patent offices, such as the USPTO or the UKIPO, which will only allow accelerated processing in specific circumstances (for example, when potentially infringing activity has been identified) or for particular categories of applications (for example, inventions having an environmental benefit).

In a recent ruling (February 2 2016) the Court of Appeal The Hague assessed the validity of a patent and SPC of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Court further decided on awarding costs based on European directive 2004/48/EC.

Every week the Managing IP blog rounds up some of the interesting and unusual IP news appearing on the web. Here’s a selection of recent items

A new collective agreement on employee inventions, negotiated between two major parties of the Swedish labour market, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Näringsliv) and the Council for Negotiation and Cooperation (PTK – being a body of 25 trade unions), has recently entered into force in Sweden. The new agreement, commonly known as The Inventor Agreement, applies to employee inventions reported to the employer as of December 1 2015.

The Athens Single Member Court of First Instance recently granted a preliminary injunction based on a patent despite the fact that the Opposition Division of the EPO, a few days before the preliminary injunction hearing, had revoked the same patent.