Search results for

The Czech Republic has improved its trade mark protection in readiness for joining the European Union. Karel Cermak Jr, of CERMAK o HOREJS o VRBA in Prague, examines the most important changes

Hungary has had a new trade mark law since 1997. Michael Lantos, of Danubia Patent & Trademark Attorneys in Budapest, examines how some cases have been handled since it came into force

Ella Cheong & G Mirandah provide an overview of three important trade mark cases involving foreign owners during 1999

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

Domain names are becoming a hot topic in Mexico. Jesus Molina, of Olivares & Cia in Mexico City, examines what opportunities are available for trade mark owners to enforce their rights on the web

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.

Chiron has won the latest round in its marathon battle with Roche over biotechnology patents. On May 18, the Landgericht(district court) in Dusseldorf, ruled that Roche's Amplicor HIV PCR tests infringed Chiron's European patent number 181 150.

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.

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Ltd (RCPPL), which was held to have infringed the RAINFOREST CAFÉ trade mark of Rainforest Café, Inc (RCI) under the repealed Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 1992 edition) by the High Court last year, has failed in its appeal to the Court of Appeal (see the December 1999 issue of MIP under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

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.