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 12,819 results that match your search.12,819 results
  • A recent decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeal has clarified what some had viewed as permission by the trial division to use third-party marks in keyword advertising
  • On the basis of its Red Bull – and Bull – marks for alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks and Class 3 goods like perfumes, the firm behind Red Bull has requested cancellation of the word mark Pitbull and the device showing in the centre the head of a pit-bull terrier with the word Pitbull above it and below the words "get the power". These marks were registered for identical goods, so there was no controversy about this point.
  • In the US, trade mark owners typically have two options to prevent the misuse of their marks as part of domain names, namely filing a complaint pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (UDRP) and seeking relief pursuant to the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).
  • February 15 2011 marks the implementation of expedited patent examination in Malaysia by the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO), under the Malaysian Patents Act 1983 subject to the Patents (Amendment) Regulations 2011. Apart from bringing a large number of patent examiners of various technical expertises to overcome the backlog of pending patent applications in Malaysia, the introduction of expedited examination is one step to reduce patent pendency by expediting and accelerating allowance and issuance of a patent application.
  • The rapid growth of the internet in Indonesia has allowed the emergence of new conflicts that could trigger a breach of domain name and trade mark rights. For example, if a party registers a domain name using the mark of another party of which the registrant is not the trade mark holder, this action constitutes a trade mark infringement. In Indonesia the domain name registration is generally done without prior examination process. The examination performed by the governing body of domain names is merely based on the domain name registered previously.
  • In an action for infringement of a 3D trade mark, decision 585/2010 of the Athens Multimember Court of First Instance defined the conditions under which a 3D trademark depicting the product that it distinguishes has distinctive character. The court accepted that the plaintiff's filled rolled wafer in the shape of a cigar was innovative, since wafers had previously been flat and without a filling. For this reason, the court found that a three-dimensional trade mark depicting the product has distinctive character.
  • Article 39.3 of TRIPs establishes that test data required as a condition to approve the marketing of pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical products which use new chemical entities, the origination of which involves a considerable effort, shall be protected against unfair commercial use.
  • A motion to review the "current state" of the UDRP has been passed by the Generic Names Support Organisation Council of Icann, which is the organisation's policy making body. An issues report will examine "how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process". And "whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated". Once this is completed, the Council will vote on whether to start a policy development process, which could later effect change in the UDRP. "I don't think it is well timed with everything else going on with new gTLDs as the UDRP is the one solid mechanism currently in place," said David Taylor of Hogan Lovells (right), though he said a review might strengthen it for brand owners.
  • The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last month ruled in favour of Levi Strauss in a decision that sheds light on the 2006 Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA).