Search results for

Trade mark offices are the gatekeepers between IP owners and a successful trade mark application. But which are doing the best job? John Olsen and Nicholas Bolter present the findings of a survey

The Taiwan Trade Mark Act stipulates that any mark identical with or similar to a mark registered or filed earlier by another shall be unregistrable. In assessing whether a junior mark is similar to a senior mark, the two marks are generally viewed in their entireties. However, in a recent opposition case, questions have arisen as to whether a junior mark incorporating several discrete components respectively similar to a series of senior marks will be deemed a similar mark and whether the form under which a senior mark is used in commerce will be considered in the assessment of likelihood of confusion.

In the Singapore patent system, there are a number of search and examination options available to proceed to grant. One option is to request examination based on a search report of a corresponding application. Alternatively, applicants may rely on the final results of a search and examination as to substance of a corresponding application. The concept of a corresponding application is therefore important in pursuing these search and examination options.

German company Daimler AG filed a cancellation action against Russian trade mark registration 272644 of March 6 2003 due to non-use registered in the name of an unknown Russian company. This was a seemingly routine case but not for the subject matter of the trade mark. It is a verbal mark Maibach. A very similar trade mark (Maybach) is much more familiar than the name of the Russian company which registered the slightly different mark.

The recent decisions issued by the Trade Mark Re-Examination Committee of the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (SOIT) in the three cases Limo v Voslauer Biolimo, subject to appeal pending with the 5th Civil Section of the Bucharest Tribunal, will have an important impact on the question of Limo trade mark distinctiveness for products in class 32, and may represent an important instrument to be taken into account by OHIM when deciding upon the pending oppositions filed by the owner of the Limo trade mark against Community and international trade mark applications containing this term.

Kraft Foods Polska Spólka Akcyjna from Warsaw, the owner of the Prince Polo trade mark (R-148617) gave a reasoned notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a a right of protection to the Marco Polo trade mark (R-174796) that was applied for by Zaklady Przemyslu Cukierniczego Mieszko SA for goods in class 30, mainly for pastry and confectionery.

Can the owner of an unregistered trade name sue for infringement? This was the main issue tackled by the Supreme Court in its decision issued on March 3 2010, in the case of Coffee Partners Inc vs San Francisco Coffee & Roastery, Inc (GR no 169504). Coffee Partners, a domestic corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in January 2001, has a franchise agreement with Coffee Partners, a British Virgin Islands company organised in 1997, to operate coffee shops using the trade mark San Francisco Coffee. San Francisco Coffee and Roastery is also a domestic corporation engaged in the wholesale and retail sale of coffee, registered with the SEC in May 1995. It registered the business name San Francisco Coffee & Roastery Inc with the Department of Trade and Industry in June 1995, but not with the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPhil).

Norway's new Trade Mark Act is expected to enter into force on July 1 2010. The new Act mainly represents a modernisation of the old Act and codification of existing case law, but a f ew important practical aspects of the new Act should be noted.

It is established case law that the content of the disclosure of a prior art document is constituted not only of the words actually used but also what the publication reveals to the skilled reader as a matter of technical reality. In a recent case (Ratiopharm v Eli Lilly) the court of the Hague ruled that when a prior art document contains prima facie an error, the document does not need to be ignored but may still be used if the correction of the error is directly and unambiguously evident.

The Mexican Trademark Office (IMPI) usually applies strict criteria concerning trade mark likelihood of confusion and distinctiveness. In order to determine marks' confusing similarity, examiners base their exam on an "analysis of the similarities", determining this from the existence of a common element and disregarding the marks' overall impression.