Search results for

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The new Industrial Property Code entered into force in January 2017 and repealed Decree Law No 551 on Patents and other decree laws pertaining to IP rights.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 Under the now repealed Decree Law, third parties were only allowed to comment on the search report on patent application within six months of publication of the search report.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.

On January 12 2017, the Ho Chi Minh City Court rendered a ruling in favour of a major Silicon Valley high-tech company. This ended a lengthy dispute between the company and a Vietnamese entity over the latter's unauthorised use and registration of a company name and a domain name which incorporated the former's registered trade mark. To the delight of the US company, the court resolved the dispute in an expedient 55 days. The brand owner's course of action provided a useful test of new regulations on domain name and company name disputes.

The doctrine of equivalents is provided under Section 75.2 of the IP Code of the Philippines (Republic Act 8293). However, in deciding actions for patent cancellation and infringement, the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) as well as the Supreme Court rely for the most part on American case law. The recent patent infringement case of Eddie T Dionisio v Visita International Phils, Inc and Lal K Tulsiani (IPV No 10-2013-00034, July 28 2016) citing a cancellation case also between the parties shows this.

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) announced last month that the fees for patent search and examination reports and for trade mark applications will be reduced effective April 1 2017.

In accordance with Article 4bis (1) of the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, a national registration can be replaced by its posterior international trade mark registration. This provision concerns the situation where a trade mark that is subject of a national registration is also subject of an international registration designating the same country and applies when both registrations stand in the name of the same person and cover identical goods or services.

A Dutch court issued decisions in two court actions that illustrate the remedies that are available from the Dutch courts in cases of contributory infringement. The court found that it had jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction on offering and supplying a contributorily infringing product inside and outside the Netherlands, also against a non-Dutch party. The patent acts throughout Europe were essentially identical on contributory infringement. However, the court held that patent law excluded an injunction on holding a contributorily infringing product in stock.

The sweeping changes introduced by Turkey’s new law on Industrial Property are discussed in detail in the following two articles. The new law is, however, just one part of the story of Turkey’s rapid IP evolution in recent years, which comes as the country’s government gradually takes steps to comply with EU accession standards

Highlights at the International Trade Commission in 2016 included the most Section 337 investigations since 2011, the first live hearing for a decade and the first antitrust claim for 25 years. Michael Loney asks ITC practitioners what trends they expect in 2017