Search results for

The PRC Trade Mark Office (TMO) has had a long-standing policy prohibiting class 35 service mark coverage for "retail services" and similar descriptions. This policy has been directly and indirectly challenged through recent changes in the Nice Classification, judicial decisions and comments by many Chinese legal scholars. But for the time being, the policy remains largely intact.

In the case underlying decision X ZB 1/16 ("Ventileinrichtung") discussed below, an opponent attacked a patent-in-suit based on lack of patentability. The Opposition Division of the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) maintained the patent-in-suit as granted. In appeal proceedings, the complainant (opponent) introduced inadmissible extension as a new ground of opposition. The German Federal Patent Court (BPatG) fully revoked the patent-in-suit on the basis of inadmissible extension. The patentee filed an appeal on points of law against the BPatG's decision.

In Dropbox, Inc v Thru Inc, the US District Court for the Northern District of California applied to a trade mark dispute the Supreme Court's recently adopted test for determining whether reasonable attorney fees should be awarded to the prevailing party. In doing so, the Court found that the defendant's conduct both prior to and during the litigation was in bad faith, rendering the case "exceptional" and justifying the grant to the plaintiff, Dropbox, of an award of attorneys' fees and costs in excess of $2 million. The ruling serves as a stark reminder of the risks associated with attempting to cultivate opportunistic or unreasonable litigation strategies.

The Supreme Court published a ruling in 2015 in a design patent infringement lawsuit that aroused some controversy.

On March 22, the Beijing IP Court issued a decision addressing standard essential patents (SEPs) related to a China standard – WLAN Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI). The Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff – a Chinese technology development company IWNCOMM against Sony, which sells mobile handsets. The Court awarded more than Rmb9 million ($1.3 million) in damages. But what is more noticeable in the decision is the Court's rulings on the doctrine of patent exhaustion, indirect infringement, injunctions for SEPs and the determination of damages.

These days some restaurants offer a selection of knives to choose from. On such a tray you might find a Laguiole knife. Laguiole knives are produced in the small village of Laguiole, located in the Massif Central region of France, thus "Laguiole" originally is neither a trade mark, nor a company name. However since the name Laguiole has become associated with high-end traditional knives, the interest in the protection of the word Laguiole has been growing accordingly. It is not your typical trade mark history and is the reason why the appeal decision of April 5 from the CJEU (C-598/14) caught my eye.

In a recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Athens, it has been found that the likelihood of confusion of the consuming public, resulting from the infringement of a distinctive title (a brand name, in breach of the fundamental principle of priority (first come, first served), as well as the provisions on unfair competition) is not removed by any possible provisions of a purely administrative nature.

The USPTO recently made permanent a pilot programme to conduct random audits of post-registration affidavits of use. Jason Vogel and Sam Kilb explain what trade mark owners need to know about the changes and suggest best practices

On March 6 2017, in the case of Forietrans Manufacturing Corp et al (FMC) v Davidoff and Japan Tobacco et al, (GR No 197482) the Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed the resolutions of the Secretary of Justice (Secretary) finding no probable cause to charge FMC for the crimes of infringement and false designation of origin with reference to the trade marks Davidoff and Mild Seven.

Law 24/2015 came into force on April 1. It completely modifies the previous Spanish Law 11/1986.