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 22,228 results that match your search.22,228 results
  • The decision of the Full Federal Court in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare Investments (Ireland) (No 2) Limited v Generic Partners Pty Limited (2018) FCAFC 71 (May 10 2018) indicates that a mistake in a claim cannot be ignored even where the skilled person understands that a mistake has been made. For infringement of claim 1 of Australian Patent No 2001260212 to have been made out by GSK, it was necessary for the term "reciprocating basket" to mean "reciprocating cylinder" or for the term "reciprocating basket" to be ignored altogether.
  • 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.
  • In the case of Christian Louboutin SAS v Abubaker & Ors, a single judge of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court summarily dismissed a trade mark infringement and passing off suit on May 18 2018, without issuing summons to the defendants, holding that use of a single colour rather than a combination of colours does not qualify as a mark under Section 2(1)(m) and as a trade mark under Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trademarks Act 1999 (hereinafter the Act).
  • 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.
  • Denim giant Levi Strauss & Co has recently won a trade mark infringement case against Dutch retail chain Hema concerning its famous V-shaped stitching on the back pockets of its jeans.
  • Turkey has welcomed the new Intellectual Property Code (the IP Code) numbered 6769. This came into force on January 10 2017.
  • 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.
  • Although it is the general policy of the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to suspend opposition proceedings when the parties to such proceedings become involved in a civil action which may be dispositive of the case, a recent decision issued by the US District Court for the District of Delaware in Tigercat Int'l, Inc. v Caterpillar Inc. indicates that there are circumstances where, conversely, federal courts will stay a litigation pending a TTAB ruling.
  • 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.
  • 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.