Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 22,110 results that match your search.22,110 results
  • In this case, the plaintiff owned the combined word and design trade marks B MEN Thierry Mugler and ALIEN ESSENCE ABSOLUE Thierry Mugler. The defendant owned the younger word and design trade mark Thierry Mugler. Both lower courts decided there was infringement of the prior trade marks.
  • The new president of the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) – Luiz Otávio Pimentel – took office on August 11 2015 in a formal ceremony in the city of Rio de Janeiro. During his speech, the new president clearly and expressly recognised that the existing backlog of work in the patents and trade marks sectors is a serious and damaging problem: it hampers greater local investments, especially foreign ones, and jeopardizes the state policy on the promotion of local innovation and entrepreneurship.
  • A warning letter is a tool normally first used by an IP owner to enforce its IP rights before a complaint is filed. However, some recent development in China probably would increase an IP owner's caution of sending out a warning letter.
  • The key legislation that governs intellectual property in Laos is Law No 01/NA of December 20 2011, on Intellectual Property, as amended. Under the IP Law, trade mark owners can bring an administrative action, through the Department of Intellectual Property Rights (DIPR), against a shop that sells counterfeit products. This is the most effective anti-counterfeiting measure in Laos.
  • Generally, the law prohibits registration of trade marks lacking distinctiveness. However sometimes this rule can be waived. There is an international trade mark registration number 1140887 (see picture).
  • Recently, the PRC Trademark Office (TMO) has refused to formally accept a number of oppositions on grounds that the initial arguments and evidence filed failed to satisfy new standing requirements under the recently revised Trademark Law. The non-acceptance of these oppositions (referred to below as rejections) has caused consternation among the filers and their agents, as the TMO failed to provide any prior notice of a change in policy with respect to the time for filing supporting evidence in this regard.
  • In the case of Dura-Mine Sdn Bhd v Elster Metering Ltd & Anor [2015] 1 CLJ 887, the Federal Court of Malaysia conclusively decided that the exact original copies of artistic works were not required for the purposes of establishing prima facie evidence of ownership of copyright under the "true copy" requirement within Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act 1987, and applied the common law position that copyright is not limited to the first or earliest work.
  • In Solid 21 v Hublot of America, et al, the US District Court for the Central District of California issued a ruling holding that once a term has become generic, it is always generic and cannot be the subject of trade mark protection under any circumstances even if the purported owner can demonstrate secondary meaning in that term.
  • A group of Māori (New Zealand's indigenous people) representatives filed a claim before the Waitangi Tribunal, asking the Tribunal to examine the Crown negotiations towards the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).
  • The Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens recently delivered a well-founded judgement on the infringement of a well-known trade mark.