Search results for

Karry Lai speaks with INTA's chief Asia-Pacific representative about recent policy initiatives, including targeting counterfeits and harmonising trade mark policies

Observers say the Unwired Planet ruling sets out a blueprint for licensing standard essential patents, cements the UK’s position as an attractive forum to enforce SEPs and has implications for 5G

Amicus brief in Fourth Estate v Wall-Street.com urges the Supreme Court to affirm the appeal court’s decision, which favoured the registration approach in copyright infringement litigation

In a speech, the USPTO director criticises “Orwellian ‘doublespeak’” of those who tell stories about patent trolls

The Ninth Circuit’s Stairway to Heaven opinion has already been cited in an Ed Sheeran dispute. Copyright practitioners discuss its impact and issues to watch in the retrial

In the patent battle between Nikon and ASML in relation to which 11 cases were pending before the District Court of The Hague, the Court recently ruled on case three.

In a decision handed down on January 16 2018, the German Federal Patent Court confirmed that an opposition against a trade mark can be based on a company name (28 W (pat) 7/16 - eberth/EBERTH).

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal (the CoA) ruled that the well-known status of the GARANTİ mark for banking services would prevent registration of the KUTUP GARANTİ PLUS mark for different services.

In Thailand, trade mark applicants often encounter rejections on the ground of non-distinctiveness, where the application is principally composed of an acronym or a combination of unpronounceable letters. The Thai Trademark Office has consistently found that combinations of such letters in only a slightly stylised manner do not form an invented word and as such cannot pass the distinctiveness requirement. These decisions are then, almost without exception, upheld by the Thai Trademark Appeal Board (TTAB). At that point, many applicants refrain from appealing to the Thai courts due to the lengthy litigation process and the significant costs involved.

In Dart Industries Inc & Anr v Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd & Ors, a single judge of the Delhi High Court's vide order dated August 1 2018 confirmed an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, Dart Industries Inc and its Indian subsidiary, filed two separate suits against the defendants for infringement and passing off the company's registered design of bottles and caps and other designs which amounted to an obvious imitation of the plaintiffs' registered designs. The plaintiffs also filed applications under Order 39 Rule (1) and (2), Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants, and this was allowed in favour of the plaintiffs on the first day of the listing of the suit. The defendants, on being served with a copy of the summons filed applications under Order 39 Rule (4), CPC for vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction.