Search results for

On December 26 2016, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) issued the first draft of China's first Ecommerce Law, with an invitation for public comment within 30 days.

In Opke Ireland Global Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) the General Court (case T-88/16) upheld the Board of Appeal´s decision (case R 2387/2014-5) finding likelihood of confusion between pharmaceutical marks in class 5 according to Article 8 (1) (b) European Union Trade Mark Regulation 207/2009 (EUTMR), namely between the attacked EU mark application, word Alpharen, and the older national Lithuanian and Latvian trade marks, word Alpha D 3. In doing so, the Court had the opportunity to also deal with some procedural regulation rules not which are not commonly adjudicated on.

In a first for Australia, our courts have ordered ISPs to block the websites of a number of torrenting sites. In Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2016] FCA 1503, Justice Nicholas ordered a collection of ISPs to block the websites of a number of well-known bittorrenting sites. The sites included in the blocking order are The Pirate Bay, Torrentz, TorrentHound, IsoHunt and SolarMovie.

As explained in previous briefings, the new Civil and Commercial Code includes a series of rules referring, either directly or indirectly, to intellectual and industrial property matters which we have already reviewed in detail.

As part of the organisational reform of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, aiming at safeguarding their independence, it has been decided to move the Boards to a new location in Haar, some 10 km east of Munich city centre. The relocation will happen in the summer of 2017. While it has not been officially communicated if oral proceedings in appeal cases will take place in Haar in the future, a review of summons for appeal hearings in the fall of 2017 indicates that, at least for the time being, the EPO's current Isar building site remains the venue for oral proceedings in appeal cases.

Enforcement of IP rights can sometimes culminate in litigation. In Canada, as in most jurisdictions, litigation related to IP is rarely inexpensive, with significant costs incurred for both counsel fees and for disbursements as varied as travel, scientific testing and the engagement of expert witnesses. Fortunately, in Canada successful parties are generally entitled to compensation for the costs of bringing their case. Indeed, most IP litigation in Canada occurs in the Federal Courts which have recently evinced an increasing willingness to ensure the adequacy of that compensation even in the most complex cases.

Turkey’s new IP Code introduces significant changes to trade mark law. Hande Hançar Çelik and Zeynep Seda Alhas of Gün + Partners highlight the most important ones

Africa is highly attractive to counterfeiters. But, explains Chris Walters, several governments in the continent have recently taken action to tackle the problem

The new Industrial Property Code entered into force in January 2017 and repealed Decree Law No 551 on Patents and other decree laws pertaining to IP rights. The new Industrial Property Code only brings a few changes to the Decree Law previously in effect. One of the changes brought by the new Code is that, similar to the European Patent Convention to which Turkey is a party, a post-grant opposition system has been introduced. Accordingly third parties may oppose against the grant of the patent within six months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Bulletin. Under the now repealed Decree Law, third parties were only allowed to comment on the search report on patent application within six months of publication of the search report.

The Supreme Court of Thailand recently reaffirmed the test for distinctiveness in regard to trade marks, in a positive decision that will hopefully provide brand owners with better prospects for successfully arguing before the Thai Trade Marks Office and Appeal Board that their distinctive word marks should be registrable.