Search results for

Bolstered by a federal statute which gives the Olympic names and symbols special protections beyond the basic principles of trade mark law and entitles the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to broader enforcement rights than ordinary trade mark owners, the USOC has long pursued an aggressive enforcement position against attempts by third parties to associate themselves with the Olympic games without permission.

On June 27 2016, the Belgian legislature finally adopted a new exception to copyright law, namely the freedom of panorama (FOP). According to this new provision, a copyright owner cannot impose its right against "the reproduction and public communication of visual, graphic or architectural artwork intended to be placed permanently in public places, providing that it concerns the reproduction or communication of the work as it is and that said reproduction or public communication does not affect the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author" (Belgian Act of June 27 2016 modifying the Economic codex in view of implementing the freedom of panorama – new article XI.190 2/1° of the Economic codex).

The supervisory authority of the EPO, the Administrative Council, decided in its July meeting on the long-debated structural reform of the Boards of Appeal. Despite rumours that the Boards would be moved away from Munich to for example Berlin or Vienna, the AC eventually decided that the Boards will remain in Munich, albeit in premises not shared with other departments of the EPO.

The Indonesian Parliament finally passed the draft new Patent Law on July 28 2016. This new Patent Law has recently been introduced as Law Number 13 of 2016, and is to replace Law Number 14 of 2001 on Patents.

Vietnam applies the first-to-file principle for trade mark registration and does not require evidence of use or intent to use at the time of filing, or for renewal. For maintaining a registration, though, a trade mark owner or its licensee must use the mark or risk cancellation for non-use. The IP Law stipulates that if a mark has not been used by its owner or a licensee without justifiable reasons for five consecutive years prior to a request for cancellation, except where the use is commenced or resumed at least three months before the request, the registration is vulnerable to cancellation. However, the trade mark owner is not required to submit evidence of use on a regular basis – only when the mark is attacked for non-use.

The draft Industrial Property Law in Turkey was passed by the main and sub commissions of the Science, Industry and Technology Ministry with minor amendments on May 5 2016. As shared in the issue of May 25 2016, one of the most debated issues was the international exhaustion principle, accepted for any kind of IP rights.

A recent but interesting order relates to an injunction issued against Youtube in Tata Sky Ltd v Youtube LLC, directing Youtube to take down videos that gave instructions on circumventing of the encryption system employed in Tata Sky's set-top boxes. This allowed users to view content made available by Tata Sky that they had not paid for. The recent order in August 2016 involved a variation to an earlier interim injunction issued in 2015 against Youtube. The interim injunction originally directed Youtube to ensure that the Tata Sky trade mark is not used on its website without written authorisation and to remove such circumvention tutorials. Youtube also apparently complied with taking down the allegedly offending videos. Tata Sky did not assert copyright on the videos itself.

An applicant filed a trade mark application for Halloween in respect of goods in classes 4, 9, 16, 21, 24-26 and 28 (see picture).

The court structure in Sweden for IP matters has recently been reformed and a specialized Patent and Market Court is being established to take over all patent-related cases within the next couple of years. The new Court will handle all IP, marketing and competition law cases and is operational as of September 1 2016. The new specialised court replaces the former Court of Patent Appeals and Market Court, as well as the civil disputes in the field handled by Stockholm District Court.

On July 19 2016, the Supreme Court (SC), in GR 204605, entitled Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines (IPAP) v Hon. Paquito Ochoa, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al, ruled that the Madrid Protocol is an executive agreement and that its ratification by President Aquino is valid and constitutional.