Search results for

On April 23 2016 in celebration of the World IP Day, the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) launched its improved electronic filing system for trade marks called IPOPHL TM eFile. Unlke the previous e-filing system where payment has to be deposited physically to the designated bank, the new TMeFile is linked to three different payment channels, hence, the filer need not go to the IPOPHL office to file trade mark applications. The new system was initiated by newly appointed IPOPHL Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago. The added features of the new system are:

A utility model can be obtained in Spain for inventions relating to products, not methods, and for a term of 10 years.

What trade mark issues arise with the resurrection of zombie brands? Carrie Bradley and Tony Dylan-Hyde examine the position in Europe and the United States

The past two years have seen some fundamental changes to patent, utility model and design law in Russia. Eugene Arievich and Yuri Pylnev review how they are working in practice

According to Article L615-1 paragraph 3 of the French IP Code, the offering for sale or putting on the market of an infringing product, where such acts are committed by a person other than the manufacturer of the infringing product (so-called indirect infringement), only imply the liability of the person committing these acts if they were committed knowingly.

In 2012 the European Commission set up an Expert Group to advise the Commission with respect to the relation between IP and Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. This directive is also known as the Biotech Directive.

While SPCs can be granted for medicinal products in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, it has been questioned whether medical devices that are also subject to a lengthy product approval process similar to medicinal products could be eligible for SPC protection in the absence of an explicit Regulation in this respect. In the past, the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht or BPatG) adopted a relatively liberal approach in deciding that SPCs for an implantable medical device comprising a pharmaceutically active substance are allowable (14 W (pat) 12/07). A recent case may signal that the German Federal Patent Court may apply a stricter approach in the future.

The Supreme Court of China released a new set of judicial interpretations governing the patent infringement lawsuits in March, which has entered into force on April 1 2016. The new judicial interpretation is intended to further enhance and clarify the way patent infringement lawsuits are done in China. Before going into the details, it may helpful to note that the Supreme Court is taking active steps to ensure the courts are playing dominant roles in handling patent disputes, as the State Intellectual Property Office is openly calling for more powers to enforce patents through administrative routes. The dual-track enforcement system in China, which was never given too much attention the past, is somehow a topic in today's China patent world. Some aspects of the new rules clearly give the courts a bigger say in driving the patent litigation proceedings.

Recently, in Omega SA v Alpha Phi Omega, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a precedential decision which provided clarification concerning at what point in time a plaintiff must establish fame of its mark in order to support a claim of dilution by blurring in a TTAB proceeding. The case is significant because it may affect the ability of a prospective plaintiff to succeed on a claim of dilution by blurring in an opposition or cancellation proceeding.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is gaining in momentum and the expected growth is paramount both in terms of the number of connected devices and regarding the size of the potential business.