Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 22,522 results that match your search.22,522 results
  • Martin Weber-Quitzau
  • It is widely believed that change is as good as a rest. Certainly this seems to be the case in the Asia-Pacific, although unfortunately, little has changed and no one has had any rest. The internet dominated the Asian-Pacific scene in last year's survey and its impact is still reverberating through IP practices. If anything it is registering even higher on the Richter scale. Intellectual property lawyers have never been so busy.
  • Counterfeit fear over new legislation
  • New Decision improves protection
  • ? ARGENTINA: The American government has initiated legal action against Argentina over drug patents. The Americans believe the 1995 Argentine law does not provide adequate protection for the pharmaceutical industry , and does not fulfil TRIPs requirements.
  • ? Thailand: Rouse & Co International has opened a Bangkok office. At the beginning of October, the firm hired Fabrice Mattei from Bangkok firm Monkolnavin to head up the new office. The firm now has nearly 800 staff in offices in eight countries.
  • Alexander von Mühlendahl, vice-president, OHIM in Alicante
  • As though the questions of more top-level domains, country codes, the EU domain, cyberpiracy and squatting are not enough problems to deal with, WIPO is now facing a new challenge: what to do about international non-proprietary names (INNs).
  • ? CHINA: Proctor and Gamble has won its trade mark infringement case against Shanghai Chenxuan Zhineng Science and Technology Development Co for registering the name safeguard.com.cn which P&G registered in China in 1976.
  • In Sime Darby Edible Products Ltd v Ngo Chew Hong Edible Oil Pte Ltd, a judgment was delivered by the High Court of Singapore on July 21 2000. The judgment sets out the approach taken by the local court in relation to the grounds on which a registered trade mark may be invalidated under Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act 1998 ("the Act" ).