Search results for

Last August, the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) rendered a decision in Benelux opposition proceedings in which it ruled that the opponent could not rely on the mark it invoked, as the same mark had been subject to a refusal on absolute grounds.

In Apotex v Sanofi-Aventis, Australia’s High Court confirmed the patentability of medical treatment methods, but the ruling on label carve-outs may limit enforceability. Peter Leung explains

IP professionals in five jurisdictions explain what IP owners need to know about marking their products with patent-related information

Alice v CLS Bank was undoubtedly the biggest patent case in the US this year. But six months on, do lawyers see it as a game-changer or an anti-climax? Managing IP takes some soundings

As noted in our previous article (in the July/August edition of Managing Intellectual Property) the Supreme Court of Justice held a series of public hearings related to a case concerning the liability of search engines regarding the contents of websites published by third parties.

After an extensive process of consultation, the Indian Patent Office recently finalised guidelines for examination of patent applications claiming pharmaceutical inventions. These industry specific guidelines are part of an effort by the Patent Office to lend more clarity to patenting norms in different technology sectors. Traditionally, the Patent Office has only issued a draft manual every few years, which collates latest judicial precedents. However with the changing nature of patenting in India, the Patent Office has embarked on this new practice of industry-specific guidelines. Like the Manual, these guidelines are not binding on examiners since they lack the force of law. Thus in case of a conflict between the Patents Act and the guidelines, the former will prevail.

After the new Copyrights Law enacted in September this year, the Indonesian government plans to be more active in preparing the draft of new Trade Mark Law.

The new New Zealand Patents Act and accompanying Regulations came into force on September 13 2014. The new legislation creates some issues with deposit requirements for patents claiming microorganism inventions (section 43, regulation 59).

On August 4 2014, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) introduced a performance pledge for Intellectual Property registration. Under this new pledge, a grant of a Singapore patent application may be obtained within 12 months from the date of filing the application if certain requirements are met. A Singapore design application may be obtained within four months from the date of filing if there are no objections. A Singapore trade mark registration may be obtained within nine months from the date of filing if there are no objections or oppositions to the application.

On October 7 2014, the Office of the Director General (ODG) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines dismissed the appeal of La Chemise Lacoste to the decision of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) which rejected the opposition to trade mark application 4-1996-116672 filed on December 27 1996, by Crocodile International for the mark Crocodile and device (appeal number 14-2013-0042). The contested marks are shown in the pictures.