Showing 4921 - 4930 of 5039 for "Intellectual property" with applied filters
Filters:
02 July 2018 by Managing Intellectual Property
On June 1 2018, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) issued Provisions on Several Issues in Adjudicating Patent Granting and Affirming Administrative Cases I (the Draft Provisions). The general public can submit its opinions and comments by July 1 2018.
02 July 2018 by Wayne Meiring
The Kenyan authorities have published a bill, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018 (the Bill), which proposes significant changes to two pieces of IP legislation.
02 July 2018 by Editha Hechanova
All government agencies such as the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) are directed to promote the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in resolving disputes and cases.
In a recent ruling by the Court of The Hague (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:4591) a defendant/patentee has been ordered to pay the costs of nullity proceedings brought against it, despite not wishing to maintain or assert its patent.
Following last year’s decision in Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Co [2017] SGHC 322, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has recently provided clarification on the provisions of the Singapore Patents Act and the Singapore Patents Rules regarding the correction of errors in filed patent applications.
In the case of Christian Louboutin SAS v Abubaker & Ors, a single judge of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court summarily dismissed a trade mark infringement and passing off suit on May 18 2018, without issuing summons to the defendants, holding that use of a single colour rather than a combination of colours does not qualify as a mark under Section 2(1)(m) and as a trade mark under Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trademarks Act 1999 (hereinafter the Act).
In Mexico, droit moral is attached to the author and is inalienable, does not expire, cannot be waived and cannot be encumbered. The author and his/her heirs can enforce this right.
Taiwan’s Council of Grand Justices issued Interpretation No 761 on February 9 2018, addressing the issue of whether or not judges and technical examiners at the Intellectual Property Court (hereinafter referred to as IP Court) are obliged to abide by Article 19.3 of the law on administrative litigation.
In FIL Ltd & Anor v Fidelis Underwriting Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 1097 (Pat), it was held that use of FIDELIS for insurance underwriting does not infringe FIDELITY for insurance or financial services.
When pursuing an IP enforcement case in Vietnam, counsel will often inform rights holders about the need to obtain a VIPRI opinion as a first step.
