Search results for

Recently, many disputes regarding store appearances have occurred relating to businesses, such as sushi or ramen stores. Unlike the US where the trade dress theory exists, rules for protecting store appearance in Japan are not set and no case law has ever granted an injunction. This is the first case granting an injunction in a store appearance case.

Generally trade mark use does not raise questions. The law (Article 1484) simply states that the trade mark may be used on goods, in documents, in advertisements and other material. When the issue of non-use is examined by courts, these provisions of the law are compared with what happens on the market. For the purpose of proper use, the law (Article 1486) also states that a trade mark may be used by the trade mark owner himself as well as by other people under the control of the trade mark owner. Control should be understood broadly. This is not only a licence but any transaction or chain of transactions where the trade mark owner is aware of the use by other people and may intervene if necessary. This is a relationship pattern that has been adjusted by judicial practice and proved in many cases.

Unlike many countries, Turkish trade mark law has had a rule since 1995 that a senior trade mark registration or application identical or indistinguishably similar to a junior trade mark application can be raised as an absolute ground for refusal if the goods/services are also identical or of the same type. The Turkish Industrial Property Code (the IP Code), which entered into force on January 10 2017, softened this rule, and in cases where an applicant submits a notarised document to the Trademark Office indicating that the owner of the prior registration agrees to the registration of the trade mark application that is identical or indistinguishably similar to a senior trade mark or trade mark application, then the junior application cannot be rejected on this ground.

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) announced a fee revision for patents and trade marks with effect from April 1 2017. Regarding patents, the application fees for searches or supplementary search reports, local search and examination reports, and international search and examination reports, are reduced by 14%, 25% and 37%, respectively. There is also a 30% fee reduction in the application to register trade marks that utilise the IPOS pre-approved list of goods and services. Thus, businesses and entrepreneurs will see a substantial fee reduction for patent and trade mark applications.

In the Vietnamese judicial system, there are two avenues for reviewing a court's final judgment. Under the current procedural legislation, if such judgment can be shown to be based on a serious error of law, it can go through the process of cassation, where the judgment will be reviewed and possibly annulled due to the material error in the procedure. If, on the other hand, new evidence or facts are discovered that could have affected the outcome of the case, the case can be retried.

Article 15 of Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (PRC) states:

On February 27 2018, the top policy-making bodies in China (the General Office of the Party and the General Office of the Council) published an unprecedented policy roadmap for reforming the IP adjudication system (opinions). The opinions reveal much clearer thinking and critical measures for reforms and innovation in the IP adjudication system.

Aprinciple of patent law is the principle of territoriality. This concerns the limited validity and enforceability of the patent in national territory.

In a recent ruling by the Court of The Hague C/09/545302 / KG ZA 17-1636, Pfizer and Ono faced each other over an alleged abuse of German process law by Pfizer.

An example of an international trade mark that Austria considered for registration is Access the Inaccessible for goods and services all connected to mountaineering, climbing and work at height. This English language word mark had, among others, a designation for the UK and for Austria. In the UK, the trade mark was finally registered in spite of some difficulties. The Austrian Patent Office and the appellate court did not find it relevant that the mark was approved in the UK. Registration in a foreign country, even in a country where the relevant language is the official language spoken by the whole population, can never be binding for Austria. The reasons behind this are not only formal legal reasons (for example, territoriality), but also that the English authorities examine the trade mark from the viewpoint of English consumers while the Austrian authorities examine the same trade mark from the point of view of Austrian consumers. These perspectives might well be different since the understanding of the meaning of the foreign words might not be identical to that in a foreign country.