Search results for

Nordic law firm Roschier has created a new trade mark prosecution practice in Finland by absorbing Benjon.Benjon, which does trade mark prosecution, portfolio management and strategy work, became part of Roschier's IP and technology team as of October 8. Markku Tuominen (far left), newly appointed as partner, will lead this new practice while Benjon founder Seija Saaristo retires.

In a recent matter before the Gauteng North High Court (Bayerische Motoren Werke v Grandmark International) BMW took on a spare parts manufacturer, Grandmark International, for alleged infringement of its registered designs. The designs related to various parts of a motor vehicle, for example a bonnet, which BMW alleged were being infringed by Grandmark. However, the court found that a part such as a bonnet is a purely functional article, and as such cannot be filed as an aesthetic design. This judgment sparked debate from various corners, as it has a profound impact on original motor manufactures and replacement part manufactures alike.

The origination of information which allows the marketing approval of new pharmaceutical products by the regulatory authorities has become a more complex and demanding process due to dramatic technological advances.

At first sight one might think of music and not of liquor in connection with Mozart. However, the Austrian Supreme IP Tribunal recently ruled descriptiveness of Mozart for liquor as being notorious.

Over the years, there have been arguments over whether manufacture by OEMs should be deemed trade mark infringement, both in legal theory and in judicial practice. In the past, the mainstream view was that the OEM behaviour violates article 52(1) of the PRC Trademark Law, so constituting trade mark infringement. Cases in support of this view include Nike v CIDESPORT Sports, Ruibao v Yongsheng, and Deckers v Guangyu Leather, which was issued last year by the Shandong High Court.

Two recent decisions of one of the EPO's Boards of Appeal have clarified some procedural issues, one relating to the conduct of oral proceedings and another relating to refusals in pre-grant examination.

In recent years, particularly in IP, opposing parties have increasingly chosen alternative dispute resolution (ADR) over court procedures. Mediation is a confidential non-public procedure, so no details are available to competitors. It may be of most interest to those who want to keep conditions of, for example, IP licence agreements confidential. The mediator, as a neutral arbitrator, assists the involved parties in negotiations by way of his mediation skills in the fields of communication, negotiation mechanisms and psychology. The mediator, unlike a court judge, has no decision-making authority in the dispute: the involved parties remain in full control of the procedure. Mediation allows flexibility and freedom for the parties to arrive at a resolution in the form of an agreement. The parties are also free to take into account additional aspects to be included into an agreement, like other IP rights, so that a satisfying agreement is achievable for both parties. The success rate of mediation is almost 80%.

The patent prosecution highway (PPH) is a bilateral work-sharing programme designed to improve the efficiency of patent offices and reduce workload and application backlog. Specifically, the PPH allows an applicant to fast track an application in one patent office if at least one claim in a corresponding application has been deemed patentable by another patent office. Studies of the PPH have shown that participating applications have shorter pendency times and result in the grant of higher quality patents.

A Russian applicant, Guns Ltd, filed a trade mark application and obtained registration 442267 with priority of December 16 2010 for the mark below.

In mid-2001, Australia introduced an innovation patent system, loosely modelled on the German utility patent system. The problem with the innovation patent system that was overlooked, was that it had no obviousness test, but rather a lesser innovative step test. The innovation patent was "intended to fill the "gap" that existed with regard to minor and incremental innovations. It offers a quick, less expensive and simple form of protection".