Search results for

On December 22 2017, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) published its proposed amendments to the IP Code (Republic Act No. 8293), just before it closed shop for the Christmas break, notifying the public to give their comments and informing it that the amendments shall be forwarded to the Philippine Congress this January 2018. Some of the major amendments are as follows:

The EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) recently issued its long-awaited decision G 1/16 relating to undisclosed disclaimers. The decision lays down under which circumstances the introduction during prosecution of a patent application before the EPO of a disclaimer not disclosed in the application as filed may be allowable under Article 123(2) EPC. The decision essentially confirms the standard defined in decision G 1/03 of 2004.

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.

At the end of December 2017, Beijing IP Court decided the first GUI (graphical user interface) patent infringement case in China. This case is a battle between two anti-virus software giants: the plaintiff Qihoo 360 currently is the largest cyber security company in China; and the defendant Jiangmin is a pioneer anti-virus software provider in the PC era. Beijing IP Court rendered a decision in favour of Jiangmin.

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 smuggling police and customs enforcement officers take ex-officio action against smuggling offenses as per Anti-Smuggling Law no.5607, the basic purpose of which is fighting customs tax evasions. All smuggled products seized by such enforcement bodies are delivered to customs liquidation directorates for storage and sale.

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.

Australia has relatively recently implemented support laws that require a specification to provide sufficient information to enable the skilled person to perform an invention over the entire scope of the claims without undue burden or the need for further invention. These new support laws have been stringently applied by the Patent Office, in particular in relation to claims defining chemical compounds where, in many cases, the only claims considered to be enabled are ones directed to exemplified embodiments.

In a recent trade mark decision the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, has rejected Starbucks' case against Japanese dairy producer Morinaga Milk and its Mt Rainier trade mark.

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.