Search results for

In a “remarkable decision”, the US Federal Circuit has ruled out the practice of awarding patent holders 25% of potential profits. Eileen McDermott reports

President Barack Obama’s pick to fill the position of US solicitor general has raised the eyebrows of some copyright stakeholders

eBay is not generally liable for trade mark infringements committed by its users, but can be held liable where there are persistent infringers. This was the conclusion of Advocate General Niilo Jääskinen in a detailed opinion published in December, which addressed 10 questions from the High Court in London in a dispute between eBay and L'Oréal.

The EPO says it received 232,000 applications in 2010, a 10% increase on the previous year. The figure includes Euro-PCT applications.

Howrey has closed its IP practice in London with the departure of managing partner Mark Hodgson to Field Fisher Waterhouse. Howrey had gradually closed all its other European IP departments, the majority going to form a new firm, Hoyng Monegier. But London retained a practice until January. Three other Howrey partners had left the London office in the past year: Marjan Noor, Paul Inman and Richard Willoughby, to Simmons & Simmons, Wragge & Co and Rouse Legal respectively. Howrey's London office retains four partners, working on litigation and antitrust matters. Hodgson advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies on a mix of IP and regulatory work.

India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry has introduced changes to allow practitioners to search the Trade Mark Registry's online database and to raise fees. The official notification bringing the changes into effect appeared on December 29 and PH Kurian, the controller general of Patent Trade Marks, Copyright and Designs issued a public notice on January 13. The Registry has now ended its practice of conducting official trade mark searches, but has made its online database available free of charge. The new price for filing a trade mark application in a single class has gone up from Rs2,500 ($55) to Rs3,500 ($77). This will apply to any applications filed on or after December 29. The changes come after a consultation in September last year. "The [Registry] deserves a standing ovation for pushing these amendments through, and delivering on their promises in record time," commented Indian site, Spicy IP.

The introduction of statements indicating that protection has been granted through the Madrid System marks a victory for trade mark owners. The change was agreed in September 2008, and became mandatory on January 1 2011. But it had been raised by brand owners' representatives as far back as 2005.

The US Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision in December that the Copyright Act could not be used to apply the first sale doctrine to goods manufactured overseas, after it declined to issue an opinion in Costco v Omega. The 4-4 split, with Justice Kagan recusing, affirmed a decision in a closely watched case involving a model of watches made in Switzerland, sold to an authorised foreign distributor, and imported to the US through an unauthorised sale. The ruling leaves several questions of international copyright exhaustion unanswered. "Nobody carried the day," said Jeanne Gills of Foley & Lardner. "We haven't seen the last of the issue." The ruling essentially grants foreign manufacturers greater control over pricing in the US and the grey market's distribution of their goods. This could present challenges for online retailers such as Amazon and eBay, known for providing luxury products, many from abroad, at discounted prices. "If you're a consumer or a discount retailer, it places a great burden on you," Gills said. "How do you find out where the goods came from?"Until the law is amended or the issue is clarified by the courts, manufacturers may try to avoid these issues through contract law and alternate marketing strategies.

UK full-service law firm Allen & Overy has hired Benjamin Bai to be a partner of the Shanghai office and head of its IP practice in China.

A three-person UDRP panel in The New York Times Company v Name Administration made a potentially game-changing decision, by endorsing the doctrine of laches defence. The domain dealbook.com was registered prior to the trade mark, which meant the complaint was denied. But the panel explicitly made an argument for a laches defence anyway. It is "a valid defense in any domain dispute where the facts so warrant," wrote the National Arbitration Forum panel.