-
Sponsored by Cabinet M OproiuRaluca Vasilescu of Cabinet M Oproiu finds that producing reliable, full patent applications remains a step too far for AI assistants at present -
Sponsored by Spoor & FisherMatthew Costard of Spoor & Fisher Jersey outlines the key developments and says the modernisation of the country’s intellectual property regime presents immediate opportunities for brand owners
-
Sponsored by RNA, Technology and IP AttorneysRanjan Narula and Meenal Khurana of RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys explain how the High Court of Delhi’s judgment balances well-known trademark protection with intermediary accountability in the digital ecosystem
-
Sponsored by Berken IPMaría Aurora García of Berken IP explains how Resolution No. 583 narrows trademark examination to absolute grounds, shifting relative grounds and other objections to third-party enforcement
-
Sponsored by Hechanova GroupEditha R Hechanova of Hechanova Group summarises the common issues and rewards of mediating intellectual property and other disputes in the Philippines based on her extensive experience
-
Sponsored by INLEXIgor Charles and Franck Soutoul of INLEX examine a Paris Court of Appeal ruling that fully invalidated a ‘Richard Mille’ trademark for fraud despite limits on protection based on reputation
-
Sponsored by Slaughter and MayDavid Ives, Laura Houston, and Richard Barker of Slaughter and May examine the UK High Court’s ruling and assess its implications for AI developers, rights holders, and future appeals
-
Sponsored by ZaccoLawyers at Zacco join Managing IP to discuss the shifting world of online IP enforcement
-
Sponsored by Anand and AnandPravin Anand and Ashutosh Upadhyaya of Anand and Anand examine whether taste can function as a trademark in India, with insights drawn from international practice and examples of graphical representations
-
Sponsored by MaiwaldMarco Stief of Maiwald argues that the District Court of The Hague missed an opportunity to clarify the uncertainty surrounding the term ‘first authorisation’ in Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation in a recent judgment
-
Sponsored by Gün + PartnersThe ruling addresses the impact of device mark differences, proof of use, and well-known status arguments, say Hande Hançar Koç, Havva Yıldız, and Zeynep Berfin Ekinci of Gün and Partners
-
Sponsored by InspicosJakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos highlights how a recent ruling relating to the applicable standard for inventive step assessment diverges from the EPO’s problem-solution approach
