Search results for

On May 5 2017, the Thai Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) issued two announcements in regard to patent processes in Thailand: (1) Announcement on the Establishment of a List of International Search Authorities and International Preliminary Examining Authorities (No 2); and (2) Announcement on Fees for International Applications, International Searches, Delivery of International Applications and Late Payment of Fees.

Eminent Luggage Corporation, a renowned Taiwan-based company engaged in the design and manufacturing of luggage cases, filed a civil patent infringement lawsuit with Taiwan's IP Court against an infringer. In the lawsuit, the defendant challenged the validity of the design patent, arguing that another brand of luggage case manufactured in China had already adopted the very same trunk panel design prior to its filing date.

Efes Breweries International NV, a famous beer company, filed a trade mark application 2014735627 for Золотая Бочка Шаболовское (Golden Barrel from Shabolovka). The patent office examiner refused the application arguing that the claimed designation could not be registered because it contained the word "Shabolovka" which is a street in Moscow. According to the examiner, the presence of this word creates associations with Moscow while the applicant is located in the Netherlands. Thus, this designation could confuse consumers with regard to the producer of the goods, namely his location.

In Covertech Fabricating, Inc v TVM Building Products, Inc et al, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals resolved a dispute between a manufacturer and its exclusive distributor regarding which party owned an unregistered trade mark when there was no written contract in place between the parties. In doing so, the Court established a test that manufacturers and distributors might apply to determine ownership of a trade mark.

For some time already, there has been a tendency in European and German case law to restrict protection for signs containing functional elements.

In the Dutch saga of the cross-border legal dispute between Novartis and Sun regarding commercialisation of zoledronic acid for treating osteoporosis, the Hague District Court in proceedings on the merits ruled in a verdict of April 5 2017 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:3430) that Sun directly infringes a Swiss-type medical use claim in European patent 1 296 689 B3, owned by Novartis.

In February 2017, new guidelines were published by the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS) that should be followed by medicaments or drugs considered as new molecules before the new molecules committee for evaluation, including the non-person modalities.

According to Article 59 of the Chinese Patent Law the specification and drawings related to a patent right may be used in claim construction. However, it has long been a question as to whether claims are to be construed based on claim language alone without referring to the specification and drawings, or whether the content of the specification and drawings shall be read to limit or otherwise be used to illustrate the scope of claims. In a recently decided case (number 2016-XingZai-70), the Supreme Court of China held that the content of the specification and drawings was not allowed to be read into the claims, and that claims were to be construed in a narrow sense.

Zoledronic acid hydrate (zoledronate) is a medicinal compound created by Novartis and is also an active substance of the bone resorption inhibitor named Zometa for i v infusion. Novartis filed a Japanese patent application including the claimed invention as follows: "An agent for treatment containing 2-(imidazol-1-yl)-1-hydroxyethane-1,1-diphosphonic acid (Zoledronate) or pharmaceutically acceptable salts, wherein 4 mg of Zoledronate is to be administered intravenously over a period of 15 minutes to a patient in need of bisphosphonate treatment."

Bad faith trade mark filings are not uncommon in Vietnam. In fact, bad faith is often included under the label of "dishonesty basis" as a ground for opposition or cancellation of a trade mark application/registration. Generally speaking, bad faith is deemed to occur when an applicant intentionally registers a trade mark to benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the trade mark of another owner.