Sponsored content

Claims of seniority of national trade marks for European marks have the effect of allowing owners, if they cease to maintain local trade marks, to continue benefitting from the same rights they would have had if their national trade mark had been maintained.

A hotel in a skiing area known for its bar featuring scantily-clad dancing girls was found to have an infringing trade mark. The lower courts issued an injunction in a first partial judgment. A further partial judgment was made requesting accounts of the turnover earned in connection with the running of the bar and all advertisements made for it. Accounts are the basis for all claims of compensation and damages calculations. In this case, the question was which turnovers should be included. On further appeal to the Austrian Supreme Court, the Court upheld the lower courts' judgments. It ruled on this topic as follows.

To raise funds for research and development, start-ups sometimes have to announce the existence of licensing agreements, supply and distribution agreements etc. (i.e. a contract for a future sale of a product embodying an invention). In places like the US, if such agreements were made public more than one year prior to the effective filing date, even though the details of the invention are kept confidential, a statutory on-sale bar may be triggered, resulting in loss of patent protection for the invention in the US.

The Decree on Amendments to Trademark Law in force as of August 10 2018 introduced new legal concepts to the IP Law to update and reinforce the intellectual property system in Mexico.

Until 2017, it was clear from several decisions of the Austrian Supreme Court that trade marks registered in bad faith were invalid and therefore could be successfully attacked any time and that asserted rights based on them would be rejected as immoral. However, the decisions went further: the mere use of that sign was held to be inadmissible and therefore could be forbidden as such without any other reason.

In Brazil, the courts, rather than the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO), have the final say about the registration or cancellation of a patent, design or trade mark.

The name of the castle of Ludwig II of Bavaria, Neuschwanstein, was filed as a European trade mark by the Free State of Bavaria in many classes of goods and services (3, 8, 14-16, 18, 21, 25, 28, 30, 32-6, 38 and 44). As its validity was contested, the question arose as to whether such a name was descriptive of the geographical origin of the goods and services claimed in the application.

Mexico is a nation made up of diverse cultures supported by its indigenous people. The population that is considered indigenous represents 21.5% of the total population of the country.

When inventions/designs are disclosed to the public by one of the inventors/designers or applicants, a one year grace period is available in Korea for patent, utility model, and design applications.

In 2015, the Korean Supreme Court cleared the patent eligibility hurdle for dosage regimen inventions, and announced that dosage regimens are patentable if they satisfy other patentability requirements including novelty and inventiveness (Supreme Court en banc decision 2014Hu768, May 21 2015). In the first case where the inventiveness of a dosage invention was at issue (Patent Court decision 2015Heo7889, February 3 2017), the Korean Patent Court denied inventiveness on the ground that optimising dosage regimens to achieve the reduction of toxicity or improvement of efficacy is considered routine experimentation or work of a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This shows that Korea has a strict standard for the inventiveness of dosage regimen patents.

Jurisprudence has had fixed rules for a long time on the reconditioning of pharmaceutical products by parallel importers, without the consent of the trade mark owner.

Early this year, the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property issued decisions denying registration for the trade mark PINCHE GRINGO BBQ & Design in classes 43 (restaurants) and 30 (sauces). The grounds of denial were a supposed violation of Article 4 of Mexican IP Law, which states that no patents, registrations or authorisations are to be granted for any legal figures or institutions regulated by this law, when the contents of an application are contrary to public order, morals and good customs.