Search results for

A recent judgment of the multi-member Specialist IP Court of Athens has ruled – by a 2-1 majority of its members – that there is a likelihood of consumers being confused in a trade mark infringement case, but the economic crisis in Greece resulted in an interesting dissenting opinion. In the case in question, the plaintiff US Company, E Entertainment Television LLC, argued that it broadcast the world-famous news channel "E" in Greece, among other countries, and that it is available through a subscriber platform. It is also the owner of the relevant European and national trade marks E! and E Entertainment Television.

The case reported here concerns the application for registration of a figurative mark containing the word element "FairUse" in relation to print media (class 16), services in class 35 (computer databases, computer networks), class 38 (electronic communication) and class 41 (online publication of electronic newspapers).

A monthly column devoted to IP curiosities and controversies, named in honour of John of Utynam

With the steadily increasing role of technology in society, many companies seek to promote their innovative power more widely, as an integral part of their overall brand image. Zeeger Vink explores how IP rights can support such a strategy

For many patent applicants, the primary value of the PCT is as a delaying tactic. But, say David Grant, Thomas Prock and Ed Round, it can also be used strategically

Consumers are turning green. Gabriele Engels and Ulrike Grübler discuss what this means for the legal protection of brands, from eco-labelling to the new EU certification mark

Vietnam's IP enforcement system has seen great improvements over the past few years. In particular, the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) has handled many complex disputes in the pharmaceutical sector related to patent infringement, unfair competition and trade mark infringement. Rights holders have generally been quite pleased with the decisions reached by MOST, as well as the expert opinions provided in various cases by the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP) and the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI), which are often a precursor to a MOST administrative enforcement action. Nevertheless, with a few tweaks when Vietnam amends its Law on Intellectual Property this year, the system can be improved even further to help better protect IP in the pharma sector. Below are a few suggestions for improvement.

Russian examiners did not favour confectionery. This does not mean that they are diabetics; they simply felt uneasy when an application came seeking protection for a confectionery patent for a utility model. That was application number 2014136036/13. By that time the law had been changed so that the application had to be examined in its substance not only for formal requirements. It was examined and rejected soon after. The applicant appealed against the decision of the examiner. The Board of Appeal of the Patent Office tested (tasted) it for patentability and came to a different conclusion. Why?

In a series of decisions following the CJEU's Huawei Technologies v ZTE judgment (discussed in our article published in October 2016), which is significant with regard to SEP and FRAND, German patent litigation chambers have further clarified their requirements for the conduct of parties to an infringement procedure.

Towards the end of November 2016, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office rendered its order in decision G 1/15, which brings an end to the phenomenon of so-called self-collision, also nicknamed toxic divisionals and poisonous priorities. On the date of completion of this article, the reasons for the decision have not been made available. The Enlarged Board's order is, however, clear in the sense that applicants no longer have to worry about self-collision.