Search results for

An action for unfair competition in the Philippines has two essential elements as stated by the Supreme Court in a number of cases: (1) confusing similarity in the general appearance of the goods, and (2) intent to deceive the public and deceive a competitor. On the issue of confusion, two types have been noted. These are confusion of goods and confusion of business or source of origin. In the case of Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings, Ltd. v PAPERONE, INC. (G.R. Nos. 213365-66, December 10 2018), the Supreme Court found Paperone guilty of unfair competition.

Crocs is embroiled in several disputes with local footwear manufacturers in India (the defendants) to protect its clog design. Separate actions were brought by Crocs based on registered design and passing off to protect its footwear design. The lawsuits based on registered designs were dismissed as the court found no novelty in Crocs' design based on its prior publication. The actions against six footwear manufacturers brought by Crocs are based on common law rights in the distinctive shape and design of the footwear. All the cases were heard together as they involved a common question of law. Further, the court wanted to examine the maintainability of the passing off action before hearing arguments on the grant of a preliminary injunction in favour of Crocs.

It is quite encouraging for law practitioners in Greece that Greek IP specialised courts have managed to align national case law with EU case law on trademarks during the last decade, providing a tool for legal certainty.

Two issues have arisen recently causing the Technical Boards of Appeal to refer questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA).

Christian Liedtke of Acuminis examines the possibly far-reaching changes to US trademark practice rules seeking to abolish the ability of foreign trademark holders to represent themselves in trademark matters before the USPTO and its Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Paul England of Taylor Wessing says there are two Brexit possibilities that pharma and medical devices companies really need to be aware of. Here he explains what their impact is likely to be on patents and regulatory rights

In this increasingly transparent and closely connected world, trade secrets are becoming an effective way to protect certain intellectual assets. It is widely recognised that trade secrets can help a company maintain its competitive edge. Customer lists are often among a company's most valuable assets. Safeguarding this information may be critical to the success of a company. It is taken for granted that customer lists are treated as trade secrets which are protected by law. However, in reality, this is not always true. In China, a customer list must satisfy certain criteria in order to be considered a trade secret and thus entitled to legal protection.

Negotiations are underway for a European Union (EU)–New Zealand Fair Trade Agreement (FTA). The EU proposal on intellectual property includes a chapter on geographical indication (GI) names for protection. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade recently concluded a consultation period on the proposed list of EU GIs, but what remains to be seen is the scope of protection that will be afforded to the agreed terms. A review of the EU's proposed FTA provides us with some insight into what the EU expects to achieve.

In Cards Against Humanity v Vampire Squid Cards, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in February addressed the issue of the availability of acquiescence as a defence in an opposition proceeding.

Luis Caballero, a famous Spanish liquor company filed a trademark application No 2016718658 for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages except beer).