Search results for

Who really owns your intellectual property? Wherever in the world you are based, do not risk ignoring Germany’s Employee Invention Law, warn Matthias Weiden and Matthias Bornhäusser

Eminent Luggage Corporation, a renowned Taiwan-based company engaged in the design and manufacturing of luggage cases, filed a civil patent infringement lawsuit with Taiwan's IP Court against an infringer. In the lawsuit, the defendant challenged the validity of the design patent, arguing that another brand of luggage case manufactured in China had already adopted the very same trunk panel design prior to its filing date.

Efes Breweries International NV, a famous beer company, filed a trade mark application 2014735627 for Золотая Бочка Шаболовское (Golden Barrel from Shabolovka). The patent office examiner refused the application arguing that the claimed designation could not be registered because it contained the word "Shabolovka" which is a street in Moscow. According to the examiner, the presence of this word creates associations with Moscow while the applicant is located in the Netherlands. Thus, this designation could confuse consumers with regard to the producer of the goods, namely his location.

Zoledronic acid hydrate (zoledronate) is a medicinal compound created by Novartis and is also an active substance of the bone resorption inhibitor named Zometa for i v infusion. Novartis filed a Japanese patent application including the claimed invention as follows: "An agent for treatment containing 2-(imidazol-1-yl)-1-hydroxyethane-1,1-diphosphonic acid (Zoledronate) or pharmaceutically acceptable salts, wherein 4 mg of Zoledronate is to be administered intravenously over a period of 15 minutes to a patient in need of bisphosphonate treatment."

Bad faith trade mark filings are not uncommon in Vietnam. In fact, bad faith is often included under the label of "dishonesty basis" as a ground for opposition or cancellation of a trade mark application/registration. Generally speaking, bad faith is deemed to occur when an applicant intentionally registers a trade mark to benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the trade mark of another owner.

On May 16 2017, Bill C-30, the bill to implement the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), received Royal Assent. The legislation contains a number of provisions amending the Canadian Trade-marks Act pertaining to geographical indications (GIs). In particular, the provisions expand GI protection in Canada beyond wine and spirits to agricultural products and food.

The recent case of IPC Global Pty Ltd v Pavetest Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 82, provides a textbook example of how not to create a competitive start-up.

The breakthrough and boom of the internet and the speed at which it developed brought about many conflicts and abuses including domain name conflicts.

It is annoying for trade mark owners to find third parties' previous applications for identical trade marks approved by the China Trade Mark Office (CTMO) in the category of "dissimilar" goods. When the marks are identical and the goods and/or services are closely related, the trade mark owners of senior registrations, worrying about confusion and being taken advantage of, tend to oppose the previous applications.

One of the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal has recently reminded the community of the front-loaded nature of inter partes opposition proceedings. In proceedings leading to decision T 2193/14 dated 14 March 2017 and made publicly available on May 11 2017, the opponent was deprived of the possibility of having certain prior art citations considered which purportedly were relevant for the assessment of non-obviousness. The Board of Appeal denied the admissibility into the proceedings of the aforementioned citations, which were submitted by the opponent on appeal only, and eventually confirmed the patentability of the claimed subject-matter without having considered the citations in question on their substantive merits.