Search results for

An inventor (the plaintiff) has concluded a contract with a firm (the defendant) to market together his invented product under his trade mark. The contract was concluded for an unlimited period without clauses for termination. The firm made substantial investment in tests and development of prototypes to make the product fit for the market. But after some time the inventor sent a termination letter and finally sued the firm for trade mark infringement as the firm continued using the trade mark for marketing that product. The question was whether such termination withdrawing the consent to trade mark use is possible and is valid or – as the firm stated – is disproportional and a misuse of law in view of the high investment not yet regained.

The latest survey of in-house patent counsel conducted by Managing IP reveals that companies are keen to use the proposed Unitary Patent system. However, the majority of respondents want more information, and cite court fees, judges and procedural uncertainty as the biggest concerns

Just as the world’s five largest IP offices launched a patent prosecution highway (PPH) pilot programme on January 6, New Zealand and Australia decide to bypass the PPH concept entirely and move to a single application and examination process for patents. However, Greg Lynch says there are reasons to consider a less aggressive change

Se Jeong Son of FirstLaw PC explains how the Korean Intellectual Property Office has reacted to the significant increase in patent applications across the fields of digital healthcare and biomarkers

A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred

Many companies have decided to become more open about the need to tackle counterfeiting and piracy, prompting international cooperation in the fight against the copiers. Introducing a series of articles looking at trends in counterfeiting, James Nurton reports from the MARQUES conference in Prague

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPPhil) is inviting comments from the public on its proposed amendments to the rules and regulations governing the proceedings in administrative complaints for violation of intellectual property laws (infringement, unfair competition, etc), as well as other suggestions. The IPPhil's objective is to shorten the time it takes to issue decisions.

In a recent judgment (C-431/04), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has gone against the Opinion of the Advocate General and ruled that the German courts were correct in rejecting an application for a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for the chemotherapeutic Gliadel.

Ralph Cunningham, Hong Kong

Conducting opposition proceedings at OHIM is full of pitfalls for the uninitiated. Tasneem Haq provides 10 rules to help trade mark owners achieve success