Search results for

According to the Polish Industrial Property Law, any person may give a reasoned notice of opposition to a final decision of the Patent Office on the grant of a right of protection within six months from publication of the grant in the Polish Patent Office Bulletin. Non-compliance with the six-month deadline renders an opposition completely ineffective. Within the statutory six months the opponent is bound to specify the legal basis for the opposition, together with substantiation of it. If necessary, the opposition may have to be completed or supplemented upon the Polish Patent Office's request. It is not obligatory for the opponent to prove one's legal interest, however filing the opposition is limited to a strict time frame: if six months from the grant passes, the opportunity to oppose is no longer available. The opposition procedure is available to any party that is able to prove that for some reason granting the protection right for a trade mark has violated the law.

There is no telling what Filipinos would have done if they were prevented from viewing on real time the fight between their hero, pound-for-pound king Manny Pacquiao and Sugar Shane Mosley in Nevada last May 8. Fortunately the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of a lower court to execute, pending appeal, its decision to cancel the copyright registration of one Melecio Alonzo. The general rule is that execution shall only issue if the judgment has become final and executory. However, for good reasons and only after due hearing, discretionary or execution of a judgment pending appeal may be issued.

A proposal that will make it possible to implement patent prosecution highway agreements between Norway and other countries has been launched by the government. The proposal includes amendments to the Norwegian Patent Regulations enabling cooperation between the Norwegian Industrial Property Office and other patent authorities. Denmark and Finland already have such agreements with other countries.

The European Commission has proposed a “suggested solution” for a unitary patent court in the EU, which addresses objections raised by the EU Court of Justice

Since the start of the BEST programme (Bringing Examination and Search Together) oral proceedings in examination and opposition can be held both in The Hague and in Munich, whereas formerly these proceedings could only be performed in Munich. The Technical Board of Appeal has recently issued two decisions on the question of whether a party's request to conduct oral proceedings in Munich instead of in The Hague can be denied. In T0933/10, the original request was refused by the examining division. On appeal, the Board said that the examining division did not provide any reasons for its decision. Also, the arguments of the applicant were not dealt with by the examination division. Therefore, the Board decided that a substantial procedural violation had taken place and that the appeal fee should be reimbursed. The case was remitted to the examining division to enable issuing a new decision (with motivation). However, the Board did not indicate that the applicant's request regarding the venue of oral proceedings should be allowed.

A significant number of developing economies have, of late, mustered up the courage to antagonise multinational pharmaceutical companies by issuing compulsory licences. The rationale for this is concern over the public health. As is well recognised, compulsory licences are effective instruments to provide access to expensive drugs. It is interesting to note the overlap between compulsory licensing and data exclusivity. Although these are two distinct concepts, the former may be considered an exception to the latter.

OHIM officially started its review of service standards under its new Strategic Plan yesterday, but processing times for designs have already improved rapidly.

Tea Board, India v ITC Limited may be the first case on infringement of a registered geographical indication (GI) to be decided by an Indian Court. The Calcutta High Court denied an interim injunction to the Tea Board of India, the registered proprietor of the GI, Darjeeling. The Tea Board sued ITC, inter alia, under the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act 1999, for infringement of its registered GI against the use of the name "Darjeeling Lounge, alleging such use amounted to an act of unfair competition including passing off.

Cameron Andrews, Gilbert + Tobin

Thomas Pattloch was appointed to the newly-created post of intellectual property officer in the EU Delegation in Beijing in April 2006. One year on, he talked to Emma Barraclough about the biggest challenges facing foreign IP owners in China