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 22,642 results that match your search.22,642 results
  • The Industrial Property Code (IP Code) entered into force upon publication in the Official Gazette on January 10 2017. The IP Code has now replaced the respective decree-laws (D-L) pertaining to the protection of trade marks, patents, geographical indications and industrial designs, unifying them into a single code.
  • Supreme Court justices grappled with issues including whether trade marks are commercial speech rather than expressive speech, in oral arguments in Lee v Tam. Natalie Rahhal examines the arguments made and how the court may rule
  • On January 10 2017, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) promulgated the final version of provisions that were first circulated for public comment in the autumn of 2014. These detailed provisions apply to court appeals of trade mark administrative decisions issued by the PRC Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB), with effect from March 1 2017. Entitled the SPC Provisions on Certain Issues Related to Trials of Administrative Cases Involving the Grant and Confirmation of Trademark Rights, the provisions consist of 31 articles aimed at reflecting the changes in practice brought about by the 2013 amendments to the PRC Trade Mark Law (TML).
  • In a series of decisions following the CJEU's Huawei Technologies v ZTE judgment (discussed in our article published in October 2016), which is significant with regard to SEP and FRAND, German patent litigation chambers have further clarified their requirements for the conduct of parties to an infringement procedure.
  • A recent judgment of the multi-member Specialist IP Court of Athens has ruled – by a 2-1 majority of its members – that there is a likelihood of consumers being confused in a trade mark infringement case, but the economic crisis in Greece resulted in an interesting dissenting opinion. In the case in question, the plaintiff US Company, E Entertainment Television LLC, argued that it broadcast the world-famous news channel "E" in Greece, among other countries, and that it is available through a subscriber platform. It is also the owner of the relevant European and national trade marks E! and E Entertainment Television.
  • The case reported here concerns the application for registration of a figurative mark containing the word element "FairUse" in relation to print media (class 16), services in class 35 (computer databases, computer networks), class 38 (electronic communication) and class 41 (online publication of electronic newspapers).
  • Towards the end of November 2016, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office rendered its order in decision G 1/15, which brings an end to the phenomenon of so-called self-collision, also nicknamed toxic divisionals and poisonous priorities. On the date of completion of this article, the reasons for the decision have not been made available. The Enlarged Board's order is, however, clear in the sense that applicants no longer have to worry about self-collision.
  • The Australian Productivity Commission has finalised the release of its lengthy report into the IP system.
  • PhRMA, ABA and AIPLA have submitted comments to the USPTO, and IPO has passed a resolution, all urging legislative changes to Section 101
  • The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has dismissed three inter partes review petitions filed by Covidien because the University of Florida Research Foundation is entitled to an Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity defence