Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 22,213 results that match your search.22,213 results
  • In Taiwan, both invention and design applications are subject to substantive examination. According to the Patent Act, the applicant must file a request for examination of an invention application at the time of filing the application or within three years from the filing date. If such a request is not filed in an invention application within the statutory time limit, the application will be dismissed irrevocably. On the other hand, a design application will automatically go to the examination stage after the formalities are fulfilled with no need for the applicant to request examination. Therefore a design application could be approved quite soon after filing. Though this seems favourable, it may not necessarily be what the applicant wants, especially when the applicant wishes to defer publication of that specific design due to commercial considerations.
  • Pursuant to Rule 71(3) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), towards the termination of the examination proceedings, the Examining Division of the European Patent Office (EPO) shall inform the applicant of the text in which it intends to grant the European patent. Following Rule 71(5) EPC, if the applicant subsequently pays the grant and publishing fees and files the required translations of the claims, he shall be deemed to have approved the text intended for grant.
  • The Japanese IP system has vulnerable evidence collection procedures in comparison with foreign countries. In March 2017, the Patent System Subcommittee of the Intellectual Property Committee under the Industrial Structure Council published Functional Strengthening of Systems for Handling Intellectual Property Disputes in Japan, making some proposals including an amendment of the laws concerning appropriate and fair evidence collection procedures.
  • Starbucks coffeehouses can be found in myriad regions of the globe. However, Starbucks' trajectory in Russia has not been easy. Even prior to 2000, Starbucks had its sights on Russia, noting its affection for lattes and cappuccinos. It even registered its trade mark there. However, the trade mark was not used for several years for some reason.
  • Section 13 Paragraph 2 of the Thai Trademark Act directs registrars to refuse applications for marks that are similar to a prior registered mark, given that such similarity is likely to mislead or confuse the public as to the ownership or origin of the goods claimed. In several past cases, in order to demonstrate extensive reputation of a mark and dispel the possibility of consumer confusion under this provision, the party submitted extensive use evidence.
  • In the last few years, the US Supreme Court has held that laches is not an available defence to claims for copyright or patent infringement brought within the limited periods described under each of the Copyright and Patent Acts. In Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v Cosmetic Warriors Limited, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a distinction between available defences to copyright and patent infringement claims, on the one hand, and trade mark infringement claims, on the other hand, holding that laches is an equitable defence to a trade mark cancellation action because the Lanham Act has no statute of limitations and expressly makes laches a defence to a cancellation action.
  • Big names in Hollywood, sports, and music often enforce their personality rights: William Shatner called out a Toronto developer for using his likeness while selling luxury condos; Michael Jordan sued a Chicago grocer over an advert that displayed his name and number; and Rihanna litigated a UK retailer's sale of a t-shirt bearing her image. This area has become increasingly complex with the rise of social media celebrities and the borderless nature of modern advertising.
  • At last, Germany has clear guidelines regarding the litigation value of an appeal to the German Federal High Court of Justice (BGH) in patent application or opposition matters.
  • On June 12 2018, Vietnam passed a new Law on Competition that will take effect on July 1 2019, replacing the Law on Competition of 2004. The new law brings about several changes affecting intellectual property. Notably, it eliminates many of the discrepancies between the current 2004 Competition Law and the Intellectual Property Law in dealing with IP-related unfair competition.
  • One Belt One Road (OBOR) is a government initiative proposed by China's President Xi Jinping in September 2013 for joint economic development spanning 65 countries. OBOR is a proposed economic belt along the land-based historic silk road and the 21st Century maritime silk road from Asia to Europe, through South East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, West Asia and the Middle East. This initiative aims to improve connectivity and cooperation between countries in this region in order to promote trade exchanges in this area. This briefing examines intellectual property strategies that may be adopted by foreign companies, particularly by Chinese companies trading in Malaysia to keep their IP risks under control.