Search results for

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

There is a split in authority at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board over what patent claims are covered business methods. James M Heintz and Jeffrey L Johnson of DLA Piper analyse recent developments

Our highest court has confirmed that Australia has moved closer to the European standard on obviousness. Traditionally, Australian Law has presented defendants with a difficult hurdle on obviousness when trying to invalidate patents. Under our historical test, it was necessary to show a document was part of the skilled workers "common general knowledge" before it could be utilised in an obviousness attack.

Our annual report based on research by Inovia, a member of the RWS Group, reveals the top PCT filers in the major patenting jurisdictions and worldwide, as well as the fastest-growing firms

So-called well-known trade marks enjoy a privileged level of protection, which is basically evidenced by two aspects. First, the legal system provides protection even in cases where a trade mark in such a condition – being well known – has not been registered. Second, the specialty principle whereby a trade mark is only legally protected in relation to those products or services for which its registration was requested and granted is not applicable to these types of trade marks.

On July 2 2015, a joint regulation was issued by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights (MoLHR) (Number 14 of 2015) and the Ministry of Communication and Informatics (MoCI) of the Republic of Indonesia (Number 26 of 2015) on the Implementation of Takedown of Contents and/or of Removal of Users' Rights to Access Copyright and/or Neighbouring Rights Infringement in Electronic Systems.

Source : Trade mark No. 4942833

Trade marks are distinctive signs because they distinguish products or services from others of the same type or category in the market. Thus, no matter if they are composed of a word, a phrase, a design, a colour or a combination of colors, sounds or even fragrances, trade marks are characterised and have to be defined only by this capacity of distinguishing products or services from other identical or similar ones in the market.

The law with regard to famous trade marks is unequivocal: a trade mark may be recognised as famous if it became widely known as a result of intensive use on the date of filing the application among relevant consumers in respect of the goods of the applicant. There are special rules that regulate the procedure for recognising the trade mark as famous.