Search results for

On August 29 2015, the Standing Committee of National People's Congress passed certain amendments to the Law on Promoting the Transformation of Scientific and Technological Achievements. With the change, the Law now provides a general framework for the exploitation of scientific and technological achievements, and for the remuneration of inventors and those who made great contributions to the achievements.

Back in 2012, we reported that the EPO procedure up to grant had been amended, with the amendment of Rule 71(3) EPC and the introduction of new Rule 71a EPC.

nilever opposed a Hungarian national trade mark application for being too similar to its Community trade mark (CTM) Impulse. The national authorities rejected the application, stating that the CTM had established a reputation across the EU. The applicant Iron & Smith appealed against this decision, arguing that Unilever's CTM had no reputation in Hungary.

In the recent case of Oishi Group Public Company Ltd v Liwayway Marketing Corporation [2015] 2 CLJ 1121, the High Courts of Malaysia had the opportunity to consider the defence of special circumstances prescribed in Section 46(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1976 (TMA) in a trade mark expungement suit based on the grounds of non-use.

Dutch law does not provide a closed definition on inventorship. If a patentable invention arises out of an alleged cooperation of multiple parties, this may easily give rise to an ambiguous situation with respect to entitlement. The recent decision of Hymmen industrieanlagen v Teijin aramid (Court of The Hague, August 26 2015) provides more guidance on this matter.

On June 26 2015, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) issued Circular 11/2015/TT-BKHCN providing guidance on the implementation of Government Decree 99/2013/ND-CP dated August 29 2013 on administrative sanctions in industrial property. The new circular took effect on August 11 2015. Because administrative measures play a very important role in the enforcement of IP rights in Vietnam, Circular 11 was eagerly awaited as it would provide a replacement for Circular 37/2011/TT-BKHCN dated December 27 2011, a document originally designed to provide guidance on the now-expired Decree 97/2010/ND-CP dated September 21 2010. Attempts to implement Decree 99 while referring to the old circular often led to legal barriers and conflicts that were difficult to reconcile.

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) issued Office Order 15-067 series of 2015 which took effect on May 7 2015, allowing parties to have their cases mediated by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This option is advantageous for international parties or those desiring to settle their disputes involving multiple jurisdictions, and the mediation meetings can be done in locations other than the Philippines. Referral to mediation is mandatory for IPOPHL cases such as:

On January 22 2015, the Notification of the Alcoholic Beverages Control, Re: Rules, Procedures, and Conditions for Labels of Alcoholic Beverages was published in the Royal Thai Government Gazette. It sets out controversial labelling and message restrictions for alcoholic beverages that could result in major losses for the alcohol industry. The Notification has been challenged before Thailand's Administrative Court, but pending the outcome of that case, it has come into effect on April 22 2015.

In Taiwan's invalidation procedure, once the IP Office has made a determination of the validity of each claim and held that the invalidation is groundless, the case may be appealed to the Board of Appeals and subsequently to the IP Court. According to the provision of Article 33 of the Intellectual Property Adjudication Act, during the course of administrative litigation, the invalidation petitioner may, in addition to relying on the originally filed evidence, submit new evidence in regard to such grounds as novelty or inventive step. On the other hand, the patentee, to dispel the effectiveness of the new evidence, may sometimes need to conduct post-grant amendment before the IP Office to prevent the claims from being invalidated.

Last month Utynam attended Managing IP’s third annual EU Patent Reform Forum, held in Munich and Paris, and also visited the MARQUES conference in Vienna. Here are a few impressions