Search results for

In this Supreme Court judgment, the appellant claimed that they were the proprietor of the well-known marks Toyota, Innova and Prius and that the respondents were selling auto-parts and accessories in India by using the appellant's registered marks especially the mark "PRIUS" on their products. The appellant had no registration of the mark 'PRIUS' in India, whereas the respondents had a registration for the same in India since 2001. The Appellant however claimed that their mark 'PRIUS' was registered in numerous other jurisdictions since 1990. The Division Bench of Delhi HC vide its order dated January 12 2017 held that even though 'PRIUS' was a well-known mark outside of India, the trans-border reputation of the said mark had to be proved in India. Since the Appellants could not furnish necessary evidence to prove that the mark 'PRIUS' was also well-known in India, the Court ruled in favour of the Respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant had filed a special leave petition.

Producers of champagne probably did not have a toast to the recent ruling of the CJEU about protected designations of origin (PDOs). The CJEU has broadened the possibilities for commercial parties to use PDOs, such as "champagne", opening the door to various (allowed) usages of PDOs for products that do not correspond to the product specifications.

Although not as frequently as in the past, the Greek courts still require in several instances "uniqueness" of the mark in order to rule in infringement cases that the trade mark at issue is well known. In a recent case, the specialised Division of the Appeals Court in Athens handed down a judgment where it is straightforward that "uniqueness" of the mark may not serve as a criterion for a trade mark to gain a well-known status.

After the expiration of the product patent of therapeutic agent for hypercholesterolemia "LIVALO" (pitavastatin Ca), many generic drugs entered the market. Nissan Chemical and Kowa filed infringement lawsuits against generic drug manufacturers, based on a patent for a crystal form and a trade mark right, respectively, however both were unsuccessful. This case is about an infringement lawsuit filed thereafter based on a formulation patent, which was successful.

In Twentieth Century Fox Television v Empire Distribution the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of the appropriate test to apply when an allegedly infringing use is in the title or within the body of an expressive work.

Although the amended Trademark Law has a new provision on "the principle of honesty and credit" under Article 7, by nature of its generality and flexibility, it is generally not taken as a direct basis for making rulings on opposition and invalidation cases, but is subject to discretion in practice. Article 41 (1) contains the provision on "…obtaining registration through other improper means," but applicable scope was not legally defined. We need to find additional supports from typical cases or guiding opinions by the High Court or judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court. China is not a case law country, at the stage of administrative examination before the Chinese Trademark Office (CTMO) precedent cases are not persuasive, let alone binding. Therefore, facing many obvious pirate applications/registrations, the true owners are not able to find quick recourse before CTMO. Since there has yet to be effective and efficient methods to get back their rightful rights other than by trade mark assignment, if they do not opt to pay exorbitant fees as compensation they have to rebrand for the Chinese market resulting in a heavy burden. This has become a big issue against judicial efficiency and justice, and also has perplexed many American and European trade mark owners thus far.

The doctrine of "indirect infringement" has long been introduced into the patent systems of European countries and the United States. While there are similar regulations in the patent systems of Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea, no substantial regulations governing conducts involving indirect infringement are embraced in Taiwan's Patent Law. It is thus not of rare occurrence in Taiwan that patent owners proceed to take actions against non-direct infringers by resorting to the Civil Law, alleging that they are joint infringers.

Artificial intelligence innovation is challenging to patent because of changes in US law, meaning trade secrets may be more appealing. David A Prange and Alyssa N Lawson examine how to approach AI asset protection

A recent case Scomadi Ltd & Anr v RA Engineering Co at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) referencing two Registered Community Designs (RCD) showed the importance of accurate agreements between parties involved in manufacture and sales. The issues before the judge were breach of contract and infringement relating to three scooter models manufactured and sold by RA Engineering. The registered rights were two Registered Community Designs for motor scooters. The RCDs were owned by Scomadi who themselves sold a portfolio of retro-style vehicles with the look of the well-known 1960s Lambretta scooters.

The case reported here concerns the application for registration of a word mark GROOVE in relation to "condoms" (class 10).