Search results for

In Nigeria there were two important trade mark judgments, both of which went in favour of foreign companies. In the case of Piaggio & CSPA v Autobahn Techniques and the Registrar of Trademarks (Federal High Court, Lagos, November 30 2017) the court made it clear that a Nigerian distributor cannot take the trade mark of its foreign principal. The judge sent this warning to Nigerian distributors: extensive promotion does not amount to 'acquisition of proprietorship and goodwill.'

The question of the protection of spare parts by designs has always been controversial.

During the time of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, a famous hotel existed in Vienna. Its name was Meissl & Schadn and its restaurant was very well-known for its high-end beef dishes.

A decree has changed the rules for intellectual property in Argentina, quite drastically in some instances. Iris V Quadrio, Martín Bensadon and Iván A Poli analyse the most important modifications

Identification and quantification of HER2/neu as a proto-oncogene has led to humoral or antibody-based passive immunotherapy, including the use of trastuzumab (Herceptin®).

On January 17 2018, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines issued its Guidelines on the Examination of Information Communications Technology (ICT) and Computer Implemented Inventions (CII), as a result of increasing demand for patent protection in these fields. In the past, patent examiners applied the general guidelines for patent examination, but difficulties encountered by patent examiners resulting in inconsistent decisions on patent grants and refusals necessitated the issuance of separate examination guidelines. These guidelines do not have the force of law but are meant to assist the examiners in determining whether the claimed inventions comply with the substantive law (Sections 21 and 22 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code) and its Implementing Rules 201 and 202).

A non-use court action is routine for the IP court. Every year several hundred cases are considered and granted. Sometimes, however, a cancellation action stumbles at unexpected obstacles.

In recent decisions, two different single judges of the Delhi High Court, while adjudicating trade mark infringement and/or passing off cases involving online transactions, interpreted Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The judges asserted that every suit should be brought in a court in whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. They also reiterated that the court will have territorial jurisdiction to decide on such cases only where the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendant has entered into a commercial transaction using a website with a user within the forum state. This must have resulted in injury or harm to the plaintiff within the forum state.

Clients are struggling to ban infringing goods from the internet, we experience difficulties making payments because our bank is under a Distributed Denial of Service attack and we frequently receive phishing mails and spam. Despite this, Pirate Bay and illegal streaming can be tempting (even to IP professionals).

In Teksystems v Teksavvy Solutions, the US District Court for the District of Maryland addressed the issue of whether a party's threat to initiate a cancellation action against a trade mark registration before the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) was sufficient to create a case or controversy which provides a basis upon which a party may seek a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of a mark.