Showing 4961 - 4970 of 5083 for "Intellectual property" with applied filters
Filters:
02 August 2018 by Managing Intellectual Property
The judiciary in England and Wales has announced a pilot scheme for the new rules on disclosure that may affect intellectual property disputes
04 July 2018 by Managing Intellectual Property
Meet with start-up founders, entrepreneurs, investors, corporate and brand executives, and thought leaders at unbound London festival
02 July 2018 by Managing Intellectual Property
The general limitation period for juridical actions in Austria is 30 years. However, particular laws can stipulate shorter or longer limitation periods.
Turkey has welcomed the new Intellectual Property Code (the IP Code) numbered 6769. This came into force on January 10 2017.
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).
