Search results for

A new law concerning protection for geographical indications and local and regional authorities, as well as the EU trade mark package, will give INPI more powers. Marie-Aimée de Dampierre explains why

When faced with a claim of trade mark infringement, a defendant might avoid or minimise liability if it can establish the equitable defence of acquiescence. A defensive claim of acquiescence may be available where the trade mark owner has affirmatively represented to the defendant that the mark at issue may be used and the defendant relies on that representation to its prejudice. In general, an acquiescence defence requires that a defendant satisfy three elements, namely: (1) it received assurances from the plaintiff that the defendant could use the mark; (2) it relied on such assurances; and (3) it would experience undue prejudice if it now had to cease use of the mark.

In early 2015, Vietnamese authorities continued their stepped-up IP enforcement campaigns, showing a commitment to improve the IP situation against the backdrop of TPP and EU FTA negotiations. Notable cases included:

Managing IP’s annual North America Awards dinner was held in Washington, DC in March, and attended by guests from all over the US and Canada

German Patent Law prohibits not only direct use of a patented invention, but also indirect use by delivery or offering for sale means relating to a substantial element of the invention, provided that the person making the delivery or offer knows, or it is obvious, that these means are both suitable and intended for use in practising the patented invention. This also applies to deliveries or offers imported to a customer in Germany.

Should we keep our work in-house, or outsource it to external providers?

The Australian courts have recently clarified what acts will constitute novelty destroying prior art. In Australia, patents are normally invalid where the idea was publicly used or known before the priority date of the application. This normally means a novelty-destroying act occurs when at least one member of the public is free to make use of the information obtained from the act.

A monthly column devoted to IP curiosities and controversies, named in honour of John of Utynam

The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) is reviving its effort to amend the patent law. A new version of the proposed amendment was released for public comments with a deadline of the end of April 2014.

In a decision of March 17 2015, the Court of Appeal in the Hague confirmed the judgment of July 31 2013 of the first instance court in invalidating the Netherlands part of European patent EP 1224954 with respect to a fire extinguishing post (bluspost in Dutch). This judgment under appeal was based on a claim filed by the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (RWS) in the Netherlands. In the judgment, the Netherlands part of the patent was invalidated among other reasons for lack of novelty in view of a memo of the RWS as sent to one of the competitors of the patent owner Doebros.