Search results for

Managing IP is delighted to be working with the GACG on the 2016 Global Anti-Counterfeiting Awards. Nominations can now be made

Till Lampel and Martina Pfaff review recent decisions from German courts regarding trade marks, in particular some notable decisions from the Federal Supreme Court

US courts have long held that consent agreements should be given "great weight" by the USPTO when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion between an applied-for mark and an existing registration. Indeed, the USPTO's Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) specifically states that the USPTO "should not substitute its judgment concerning likelihood of confusion for the judgment of the real parties in interest without good reason, that is, unless the other relevant factors clearly dictate a finding of a likelihood of confusion". Recently, however, in In re Bay State Brewing Company, Inc, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a precedential decision in which it decided to affirm a likelihood of confusion refusal, notwithstanding the fact that the parties at issue had entered into a consent agreement.

A recent example of the peculiarities of UK copyright law has brought into sharp relief how the length of some IP rights can outlive changes in statute and policy.

Since the beginning of this year following law n° 20104‐315 of March 11 2014 reinforcing the battle against counterfeiting, an article was introduced in the Intellectual Property Code regulating the IP profession stipulating that all qualified patent and trade mark attorneys (conseils en propriété industrielle) need to dedicate a significant part of their time to professional training.

According to Article 49.2 of the Trade Mark Act, in a trade mark dispute, such as an opposition, invalidation or non-use cancellation action, the IP Office is required to serve a copy of the brief/counterstatement filed by each party on the other party for a response. Under such procedure, the parties can alternately submit observations. It is only when the procedure comes to an end that the IP Office will start examining the case and render a decision.

According to the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, while a main infringement action is pending, the defendant has the right to request that a preliminary injunction, previously granted for the same cause of action and between the same parties, be lifted on the basis of either an error in law or/and of an error in fact.

While the recently released EPO performance statistics for 2015 show an increase in the number of grants compared to the previous year and a decrease of backlog of searches by two thirds, delay in examination of pending cases is still of concern to some. A recent appeal decision rendered in the field of computer implemented inventions reveals that excessive examination delays do not amuse the Boards of Appeal. More specifically, in decision T 823/11 rendered in December 2015, Board 3.5.07 has ruled that duration of examination proceedings of more than 12 years must be regarded as excessive and amounts to a substantial procedural violation.

At the end of February the Preparatory Committee for the Unified Patent Court announced the definitive proposal for court fees for the UPC, which is planned to start in early 2017.

Several sections related to IP-related matters in the Argentine New Civil and Commercial Code are among the regulations that govern agreements, and among those agreements it is the franchise agreement that has the largest amount of regulations of interest in terms of intellectual property.