Search results for

It is natural to expect that when a company files a patent application it wants to obtain a patent, maintain it and obtain some profit from it. Sometimes the natural course of things is disrupted.

It has been approximately a decade since the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) adopted very strict criteria when assessing the likelihood of confusion between trade marks. As a result of this strict approach IMPI's trade mark examiners had some criteria that were troublesome, especially when marks including designs or associated to a concept were compared to each other.

In a recent decision, the Trademarks Administrative Commission ruled on a case regarding the infringement of a famous trade mark. In particular the applicant filed an application for the trademark Coco & Silk and device, covering goods in classes 14, 18 and 25. The opposing party, Chanel SARL, filed an opposition against the acceptance of this trade mark claiming infringement of its famous trade mark Coco covering goods in classes 14, 18 and 25. The applicant, in defence, claimed that the distinctiveness of its trade mark lies on the combination of the two words, Coco and Silk, as well as on the device contained in the opposed trade mark. To support its argument, it provided evidence that the word Coco forms part of several composite national trade marks belonging to third parties, covering similar goods in classes 14, 18 and 25, all of which co-exist. As claimed by the applicant, the existence of these trademarks proves that the word Coco is of weak distinctiveness.

IP rights – among which is the right of the trade mark owner– enable the holder to exploit with exclusivity certain intangible assets. Every time a misappropriation or trade mark infringement takes place, the owner of the trade mark that is subject to infringement also suffers damage, due to the simple fact that a third party is using a similar or identical trade mark without their consent.

The UKIPO has long provided the means for any third party to obtain an independent opinion on questions of validity and infringement in relation to granted UK and EP(UK) patents. More recently this service has been extended, for example by allowing additional grounds of invalidity to be raised, leading to a surge in its popularity among clients operating in the UK.

The Supreme Court has held that the designs in a cheerleading uniform satisfy the test for copyright protection in its Star Athletica v Varsity Brands ruling. Observers say the decision provides a standard test to be applied to the separability analysis

Tribunal in NAFTA arbitration between Eli Lilly and the Canadian government has found the application of the promise doctrine did not involve a fundamental change in the country’s patent law, in a keenly-anticipated decision

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has now given rulings in all 33 petitions filed by Kyle Bass’s Coalition for Affordable Drugs. The final tally is that the coalition succeeded in getting claims invalidated in 27% of the total petitions filed and 50% of those that were instituted

The Supreme Court rejected wholesale the Federal Circuit’s stance that laches be an available defence in patent law, in its SCA Hygiene v First Quality ruling

The Federal Circuit maintains its high invalidity rate on Section 101 decisions so far this year but the district court rate has fallen, according to new figures from Fenwick & West’s Robert Sachs. One interesting recent trend is the PTAB has reversed all 16 ex parte appeals of Section 101 rejections since October