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
  • The Thai Alcohol Control Act (the ACA) B.E. 2551, enacted in 2008 sets out the legal framework for trade restrictions on alcoholic beverages in Thailand. Along with the related implementing Ministerial Regulations, the ACA has had implications for trade mark owners' rights.
  • When pursuing an IP enforcement case in Vietnam, counsel will often inform rights holders about the need to obtain a VIPRI opinion as a first step. VIPRI (Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute), a quasi-governmental organisation, is the only agency in Vietnam authorised to provide expert opinions (statutorily known as assessment conclusions) on IP infringement.
  • Following last year's decision in Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Co ([2017] SGHC 322), the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has recently provided clarification on the provisions of the Singapore Patents Act and the Singapore Patents Rules regarding the correction of errors in filed patent applications. The Novartis v Bristol-Myers case primarily concerned a family of four Singapore patents (one parent and three divisional patents) all claiming priority from a United States provisional patent application.
  • An applicant obtained a patent for design No 83063 concerning a bathtub. An interested person opposed the grant of the patent averring that the patent did not satisfy the patentability criteria, i.e. novelty and originality.
  • All government agencies such as the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) are directed to promote the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in resolving disputes and cases. This is mandated by the ADR Act of 2004. In the IPOPHL the rules concerning mediation procedure are provided in Office Order No 154. This took effect on October 5 2010. Since then, all cases filed with the adjudication bureau of the IPOPHL, the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), such as oppositions, cancellations, and intellectual property violations, are referred to mediation, after the answer has been filed. Since 2010, the office of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Services under the BLA, has settled an average of 1/3 of said referred cases, which has greatly lightened the backlog of undecided cases at the BLA. Under 154, the referral to mediation is mandatory, but the mediation itself is voluntary.
  • In FIL Ltd & Anor v Fidelis Underwriting Ltd & Ors ([2018] EWHC 1097 (Pat)), it was held that use of FIDELIS for insurance underwriting does not infringe FIDELITY for insurance or financial services. It is important to note that the validity of their registrations rests on the guidance from the CJEU in Sky v SkyKick ([2018] EWHC 943 (Ch)) in relation to two questions: "(1) whether a trade mark could be declared wholly or partially invalid on the ground that some or all of the terms in the specification are lacking in sufficient clarity or precision; and (2) whether it can constitute bad faith to apply to register a trade mark without any intention to use it in relation to the specified goods or services."
  • Sponsored by Cabinet Beau de Loménie
    In France, a prior right holder cannot oppose a trade mark based on bad faith.
  • Sponsored by Sonn & Partner
    The general limitation period for juridical actions in Austria is 30 years. However, particular laws can stipulate shorter or longer limitation periods. For example, for claims in patent infringement cases, the limitation period is generally three years. This period begins from the time when knowledge of the infringement and the infringing person is obtained.
  • WesternGeco v Ion Geophysical opinion finds the focus of section 271(f) is domestic infringement, and the fact that the remedy – lost profits damages – may apply abroad is “incidental”, in a decision observers say creates the opportunity to seek much larger damages awards
  • Patent and SPC holders can stop parallel imports from new EU states to old ones if equivalent protection wasn’t available for patents at the time of filing but was for SPCs, CJEU rules in Pfizer v Orifarm