Search results for

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) issued Memorandum Circular No. 2019-006 on the Rules of Procedure for IPOPHL Mediation Outside of Litigation, extending its mediation services outside of litigation, effective from September 2 2019. Before this circular, the parties went through mediation only after the filing of the verified answer, and this applied to inter partes cases such as oppositions and cancellations, and IP violation cases, e.g. infringement, unfair competition etc. Mediation of IP cases was introduced by the IPOPHL in 2011, and as of the end of 2018, the average settlement rate is 41.4%, indicating that mediation is an effective mode of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for IP cases. There is no doubt that mediation is a more economic and quicker way of resolving disputes in comparison with litigation which could take over three years just at the first level and if appeals are to be considered, could last over 10 years. The new rules give potential disputants an avenue to resolve their conflict even before an actual suit is filed.

India, as a member of the World Trade Organization and signatory to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is obliged to align its intellectual property rights laws with the TRIPS agreement. The challenge comes not only from creating the laws but also their implementation considering the Indian government has to strike a balance between the needs of the country's citizens and the rights of patent holders. The issue has become all the more sensitive considering a bulk of patent applications in India are filed by foreign companies. As an example, the data provided by the Indian IP office in its annual report of 2017-2018 shows the applications filed by foreign applicants were more than double (32,304) compared to those by Indian residents (15,550).

A recent New Zealand High Court decision (Pharmazen Limited v Anagenix IP Limited [2019] NZHC 1520 (July 1 2019)) serves as a reminder of the subjective nature of the comparison of trademarks, with the court finding the marks “Actazin” and “ActiPhen” too similar, while on the same facts and evidence, an Australian hearings officer had decided the opposite.

A column devoted to IP curiosities and controversies, named in honour of John of Utynam – who received the world’s first recorded patent in 1449

The Ugandan Patent Office has recently objected to the grant of patents for pharmaceutical inventions following notification of grant by the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO), where Uganda is a designated state. This objection is based on the national patent law of Uganda as it relates to the flexibilities regarding the application of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) to pharmaceutical products in least developed countries (LDCs).

Robert Reading of CompuMark examines some of the common perceptions of pharmaceutical trademarks and how they measure up in reality

The market for certain spare parts used for motor vehicle repair may be liberalised in France.

The Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (the IMPI) denied applications for the mark "Pinche Gringo BBQ" and design to Daniel Andrew Defossey and Roberto Luna Aceves, on the grounds of Article 4 of the Industrial Property Law (LPI). It stated that the mark was contrary to public order, morality and good customs. The term "Pinche" is a pejorative word and "Gringo" refers to a person born in the United States, especially one who is English-speaking. However, interestingly, the real meaning of "Pinche" is a person who provides services in the kitchen or an assistant cook.

The new provision for punitive damages for wilful infringement is now effective. The newly introduced punitive damages provision should contribute to stronger protection of patents and increase general value of patents in Korea. The new provision set forth below is now effective in Korea to deter unjust acts of patent infringement.

In Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc. v Goldsmith et al. No. 17-CV-2532, 2019 (S.D.N.Y. July 1 2019), the US District Court for the Southern District of New York addressed the question of whether Andy Warhol's (Warhol) use of a photograph of Prince Rogers Nelson, best known as Prince, constituted violations of the Copyright Act. Granting the Andy Warhol Foundation's (AWF) motion for summary judgment, the court found that although the at-issue photograph was protected by copyright, AWF had a viable fair use defence.