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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Search results for

There are 22,240 results that match your search.22,240 results
  • 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
  • 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.
  • In a recent decision of the Commercial Court of Brussels, the court ordered Lidl Belgium to cease all use of the sign SOL!D in Belgium because it infringes the !SOLID trade marks registered in the name of CNS Group (Commercial Court of Brussels July 28 2015 – CNS Group SA v Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co KG).
  • The pricing of medicinal products has always been a hot issue in Greece, even more in recent years, when the government is under pressure to drastically reduce the spending on health care.
  • In the court decision X ZR 110/13, the Federal Supreme Court discussed the technical character of the graphical presentation of information. The patent in suit related to a device with a touch-sensitive display that could be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. As a result of user input, sensory feedback is provided by the device. In its decision, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed the revocation of the patent at first instance by the Federal Patent Court in respect of obviousness.
  • In a recent decision, the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society Limited (IPRS) v Sanjay Dalia & Ors resolved the issue arising out of the interpretation of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (CA) and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TMA) in a suit for infringement and its interplay with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
  • On July 6 2015, the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO) adopted a new Protocol for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (the Arusha Protocol) at a diplomatic conference that was held in Arusha, the United Republic of Tanzania.
  • A Chinese-language trade mark is essential for the introduction of a branded product or service to the Chinese market.
  • 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.
  • 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.