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 22,307 results that match your search.22,307 results
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Following the move from a self-assessment system to a positive-grant system in 2014, a Singapore patent application can only proceed to grant if the relevant requirements are fulfilled, including patentability requirements. An applicant can still elect the examination route for his application to meet such requirements. Where a positive final result from a PCT, corresponding or related application is available, the applicant has the option of requesting supplementary examination with a view to a quick examination of the application in a relatively cost-effective manner.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.