Search results for

A decree has changed the rules for intellectual property in Argentina, quite drastically in some instances. Iris V Quadrio, Martín Bensadon and Iván A Poli analyse the most important modifications

A non-use court action is routine for the IP court. Every year several hundred cases are considered and granted. Sometimes, however, a cancellation action stumbles at unexpected obstacles.

In recent decisions, two different single judges of the Delhi High Court, while adjudicating trade mark infringement and/or passing off cases involving online transactions, interpreted Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The judges asserted that every suit should be brought in a court in whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. They also reiterated that the court will have territorial jurisdiction to decide on such cases only where the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendant has entered into a commercial transaction using a website with a user within the forum state. This must have resulted in injury or harm to the plaintiff within the forum state.

In Teksystems v Teksavvy Solutions, the US District Court for the District of Maryland addressed the issue of whether a party's threat to initiate a cancellation action against a trade mark registration before the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) was sufficient to create a case or controversy which provides a basis upon which a party may seek a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of a mark.

New IP law abolished the provisions concerning the use requirement of patents and evidence on use detailed in the Decree Law on the Protection of Patent Rights. Instead, IP law now mentions the use requirement within the provision on compulsory licences, as a consequence of non-use of a patent.

In January 2018, Thailand's efforts to strengthen its IP system and enforcement processes for counterfeit and pirated goods were recognised with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) removing Thailand from its Priority Watch List for intellectual property. Thailand had been on the USTR Priority Watch List for more than a decade.

In November 2015, the National Assembly of Vietnam issued a new Penal Code. This was scheduled to come into effect on July 1 2016, replacing the Penal Code of 1999. However, due to some inconsistencies and shortcomings in the law as drafted, its full implementation was put on hold until necessary amendments could be made. A revised version of the new Penal Code was subsequently issued in June 2017 and finally took effect this year on January 1.

The question of the protection of spare parts by designs has always been controversial.

During the time of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, a famous hotel existed in Vienna. Its name was Meissl & Schadn and its restaurant was very well-known for its high-end beef dishes.

A recent decision in China provides some assurance for pharmaceutical patent owners but the direction of Markush claims is still unclear