Sponsored content

In France, a prior right holder cannot oppose a trade mark based on bad faith.

It has become common practice for parties of any administrative proceeding to ask the Institute of Industrial Property to require a third party, not related to the proceeding, or even its counterpart, to respond to several questions raised by the offeror of the proof. Such evidence is based on Article 203 of the Industrial Property Law, which states the "requirement to provide information and data" so that the authority can conduct inspection.

Paris will welcome the summer Olympic Games in 2024. This is a huge challenge for the Organising Committee.

An example of an international trade mark that Austria considered for registration is Access the Inaccessible for goods and services all connected to mountaineering, climbing and work at height. This English language word mark had, among others, a designation for the UK and for Austria. In the UK, the trade mark was finally registered in spite of some difficulties. The Austrian Patent Office and the appellate court did not find it relevant that the mark was approved in the UK. Registration in a foreign country, even in a country where the relevant language is the official language spoken by the whole population, can never be binding for Austria. The reasons behind this are not only formal legal reasons (for example, territoriality), but also that the English authorities examine the trade mark from the viewpoint of English consumers while the Austrian authorities examine the same trade mark from the point of view of Austrian consumers. These perspectives might well be different since the understanding of the meaning of the foreign words might not be identical to that in a foreign country.

During the time of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, a famous hotel existed in Vienna. Its name was Meissl & Schadn and its restaurant was very well-known for its high-end beef dishes.

The question of the protection of spare parts by designs has always been controversial.

The case reported here concerns the application for registration of a word mark GROOVE in relation to "condoms" (class 10).

In Korea, plants can be protected by both Patent Law and Plant Variety Protection Law. Activities to seek the protection of the IP rights pertaining to plants have been growing, particularly with the development of genetic engineering technology as well as with the growth of the agriculture industry. This growing interest is evidenced by the significant increase in the number of applications, not only for patents, but also for plant variety rights. For example, as of December 2015, more than 8,000 applications for plant variety registrations were filed in Korea which makes Korea the seventh most active filer of plant variety rights among the UPOV member countries.

From January 1 this year, the Korean Patent Court became the exclusive appellate court for IP related cases (see February issue). After this change, the Patent Court released some guidelines on the rules and procedures applicable to IP cases. The most recent is the "Guideline of Civil Practice and Procedure of the Patent Court of Korea" (the Guideline), which was published in English and Japanese.

The Korean Patent Act has been revised twice in the year 2016 and the revisions are quite substantial. Some of the new revisions will become effective from June 30 2016 and others from March 1 2017. The major revisions include the following:

Recently, the Korean Supreme Court made a key decision regarding how to read the prior art when making an inventive step determination (2013 Hu 2873 and 2880 (consolidated), January 14 2016).

Three years ago, Korea adopted a new patent term adjustment (PTA) system. As many readers know, PTA is a system that allows extension of a patent term to the patent owner to compensate for an unreasonable delay during the prosecution phase.