Showing 5341 - 5350 of 5462 for "Intellectual property" with applied filters
Filters:
01 September 2018 by Managing Intellectual Property
Ten years ago the Austrian Supreme Court decided a case concerning Mazda and a tuning company. The tuning company had offered its chip tuning parts for a range of cars. It also named on its website the car types for which it offered these chips. For that it used the cars’ word marks and the figurative marks (logos).
01 September 2018 by Norton Rose Fulbright
Big names in Hollywood, sports, and music often enforce their personality rights
01 September 2018 by GoldenGate Lawyers
Bad faith trade mark registrations are a persistent problem encountered by foreign companies in China. It is reported that large-scale bad faith trade mark registrations have created an industry for numerous Chinese individuals and companies.
31 August 2018 by Managing Intellectual Property
The decision of the Full Federal Court in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare Investments (Ireland) (No 2) Limited v Generic Partners Pty Limited (2018) FCAFC 71 (May 10 2018) indicates that a mistake in a claim cannot be ignored even where the skilled person understands that a mistake has been made.
15 August 2018 by Managing Intellectual Property
Managing Intellectual Property will launch its research for the 2019 edition of IP STARS on September 3 2018.
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
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).
