Search results for

Parody will be the subject of what promises to be an entertaining session today. Moderator Camila Santamaría tackled some questions about it.

On March 25 2015, in Taiwan Kolin Corporation Ltd v Kolin Electronics Co, Inc (GR No 209843), the Philippine Supreme Court held that "whether or not the products covered by trade mark sought to be registered by Taiwan Kolin on the one hand and those covered by the prior issued certificate of registration in favour of Kolin Electronics, on the other, fall under the same categories in the Nice Classification (NCL) is not the sole and decisive factor in determining a possible violation of Kolin Electronics' intellectual property right....emphasis should be on the similarity of the products and not on the arbitrary classification or general description of their properties or characteristics"." The contending marks are shown below.

With the explosion of online commerce in China, rights holders have to adapt their enforcement strategies. Celia Y. Li and Aaron D. Hurvitz of Kangxin provide insights on how to tackle this growing challenge

The Bucharest Court of Appeal recently rendered a final decision in favour of Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft in a lawsuit against Bogdan Radulescu, the sole shareholder of the Romanian company B&B Marketing Online. The company traded jewellery, watches and pens under the Swarovski trade marks through the site www.crystalglamour.ro.

A session today will examine recent and planned reforms in China, Japan and Korea. Emma Barraclough reports.

The Patent Office examined the appeal on the official action of the examiner who refused registration of a trade mark in application number 2012728603 with priority of August 17 2012 with regard to goods in class 9 and services in class 35.

Licensing is becoming a more important tool for exploiting brands worldwide. Peter Leung finds out how to do it successfully.

Registrants will be brought up to speed on the latest developments in Latin America with a regional update this afternoon, as Michael Loney reports.

In Ava Ruha Corp d/b/a Mother's Market & Kitchen v Mother's Nutritional Center Inc, the US Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a precedential decision regarding a registrant's ability to assert a laches defence in a cancellation proceeding. The petitioner Ava Ruha, which owned a trade mark registration for the stylised mark, Mother's Market & Kitchen, had filed petitions to cancel trade mark registrations owned by the respondent for the marks, Mother's (stylized) and Mother's Nutritional Center, on the grounds of likelihood of confusion, fraud and dilution. In its answer, the respondent asserted the affirmative defence of laches; and the parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the laches issue.

In trade mark infringement lawsuits, it is not uncommon for a defendant to assert bona fide prior use in a defence. The basis for such prior use is found in Article 36.1.3 of the Trade Mark Act which states that use of a mark identical with or similar to another's registered trade mark is not infringement if such use occurred before the filing date of the registered trade mark and was in good faith.