Search results for

According to Article 49.2 of the Trade Mark Act, in a trade mark dispute, such as an opposition, invalidation or non-use cancellation action, the IP Office is required to serve a copy of the brief/counterstatement filed by each party on the other party for a response. Under such procedure, the parties can alternately submit observations. It is only when the procedure comes to an end that the IP Office will start examining the case and render a decision.

According to the Mexican Industrial Property Law (IPL) the following types of pharmaceutical-related claims are exceptions to patentability:

Indonesian IP laws have always required IP rights licences in Indonesia to be recorded at the Intellectual Property Office. This requirement is set out on the Copyright Law, Patent Law, Trade Mark Law, Industrial Design Law, Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits Law and Trade Secrets Law. However, such recordal mechanism has not been carried out due to the lack of implementing regulation, even though the legal consequence is that, if an IP licence is not recorded, it would not be binding on any third parties.

According to the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, while a main infringement action is pending, the defendant has the right to request that a preliminary injunction, previously granted for the same cause of action and between the same parties, be lifted on the basis of either an error in law or/and of an error in fact.

While the recently released EPO performance statistics for 2015 show an increase in the number of grants compared to the previous year and a decrease of backlog of searches by two thirds, delay in examination of pending cases is still of concern to some. A recent appeal decision rendered in the field of computer implemented inventions reveals that excessive examination delays do not amuse the Boards of Appeal. More specifically, in decision T 823/11 rendered in December 2015, Board 3.5.07 has ruled that duration of examination proceedings of more than 12 years must be regarded as excessive and amounts to a substantial procedural violation.

In the court decision X ZR 111/13 – Telekommunikationsverbindung, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) discussed the flexibility that the parties have to amend the issues of dispute in second instance nullity proceedings. The case being considered relates to appeal proceedings before the German Federal Court of Justice reviewing the first instance decision in terms of the revocation of a patent by the German Federal Patent Court (BPatG).

At the end of February the Preparatory Committee for the Unified Patent Court announced the definitive proposal for court fees for the UPC, which is planned to start in early 2017.

Several sections related to IP-related matters in the Argentine New Civil and Commercial Code are among the regulations that govern agreements, and among those agreements it is the franchise agreement that has the largest amount of regulations of interest in terms of intellectual property.

The case of Dynawell Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd v Dynasty Landmark Sdn Bhd; Pendaftar Cap Dagangan Malaysia [2015] 1 LNS 1195, concerned an appeal against the Registrar's decision which disallowed the registration of the plaintiff's Dynasty mark.

Wi-Fi is perhaps one of the most famous words in the modern world. It would seem it is an acronym which it is not. It is a nonsense word. Phil Belanger, a founding member of the Wi-Fi Alliance, explained that it does not mean anything at all. It just sounds like it means something. Aside from being nonsensical it is a trade mark and thus it acquires very much sense.