Intellectual Property News September 2015
|
|
- Sibyl Phillips
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Intellectual Property News September 2015 We are delighted to share with you the latest edition of our newsletter covering the latest Intellectual Property developments in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. We trust you will find this newsletter useful. If you would like any further information, please contact the team in your jurisdiction. Best regards, Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow (Singapore) Hadiputranto, Hadinoto & Partners (Indonesia) Wong & Partners (Malaysia) Recent Developments In Indonesia Malaysia Singapore Joint Regulation of Ministry of Law and Human Rights and Ministry of Communication and Information of the Republic of Indonesia on the Course of Actions to Take Down Copyright Infringing Contents On 2 July 2015, a joint regulation was issued by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights ("MoLHR") (No. 14 of 2015) and the Ministry of Communication and Informatics ("MoCI") of the Republic of Indonesia (No. 26 of 2015) on the Implementation of Takedown of Contents and/or of Removal of Users' Rights to Access Copyright and/or Neighboring Rights Infringement in Electronic Systems. The purpose of this regulation is to implement measures accommodated in Article 56, paragraph (2) of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright ("Copyright Law"), which requires both the MoLHR and the MoCI to coordinate in shutting down electronic systems that disseminate copyright-infringing contents or removing such infringing contents. The regulation will provide avenues for copyright owners to take actions against online infringement. Complaint filing to the MoLHR According to the regulation, anyone who is aware of any copyright/neighboring rights infringement may lodge a complaint to the MoLHR. The complainant could be (i) the author of the works being infringed; (ii) the copyright owner; (iii) a Latest News For more information, please contact: Kuala Lumpur Chew Kherk Ying Partner Tel: kherk.ying.chew@wongpartners.com Singapore Andy Leck Managing Principal Tel: andy.leck@bakermckenzie.com Jakarta Daru Lukiantono Partner Tel: daru.lukiantono@bakernet.com Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow* Hadiputranto, Hadinoto & Partners*
2 neighboring rights holder (e.g. performers, broadcasting organizations and sound recording producers); (iv) a licensee; (v) local collecting societies; (vi) authorized associations; and (vii) other authorized parties. According to the regulation, a complainant may submit a complaint to the Directorate General of Intellectual Property ("DGIP"), which is part of the MoLHR, by filing it directly to the office or via the website. The complaint should also include the following information/documents: (i) identity of the complainant; (ii) proof of ownership of the work; (iii) website address where the infringing contents are made available; (iv) type and/or name of the content which is being infringed; (v) other information related to the work being infringed; and (vi) power of attorney (if the complaint is being lodged by an attorney). Wong & Partners* * Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow, Hadiputranto, Hadinoto & Partners and Wong & Partners are member firms of Baker & McKenzie International in Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia respectively The following are the steps for closure of the content: a. The MoLHR verifies the complaint. b. If the MoLHR finds sufficient evidence of infringement, it sends its recommendation to the MoCI. c. After the MoCI gets the recommendation from the MoLHR, the MoCI partly or wholly takes down the content and/or removes the access rights.the MoCI will also announce this on its official website. d. If the contents are entirely removed, a court judgment will be needed. The owner of the content and/or the access right of the content may file a request to the MoLHR through the DGIP to reopen the content and/or the access rights. The DGIP will assess the request and may issue a recommendation to the MoCI to re-open the content/access right that has been closed. Several local news sources reported that in the short term, this action will be mainly focused on stopping unauthorized streaming and download of movies (or other cinematographic works) and songs (or other sound recording works), and so far it has been implemented against several local websites in Indonesia. DARU LUKIANTONO / WIKU ANINDITO Partner / Associate Hadiputranto, Hadinoto & Partners Back to top Plain Packaging for Tobacco Products? A proposal to consider plain packaging for tobacco products has been recently raised in Malaysia at the International Nicotine Addiction Conference in Kuala Lumpur on 23rd and 24th April This issue has arisen in recent years and in 2012, the Australian High Court found in favour of the Australian government that the labelling requirement of the
3 Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 was not unconstitutional following a legal challenge by tobacco giants British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International, Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited in Following this decision, various countries have lodged complaints with WTO seeking sanctions against Australia for breach of the TRIPs Agreement on grounds that the decision undermines the full protection of IP rights guaranteed under the TRIPs Agreement. A decision from the WTO panel is anticipated in It will be interesting to see if Malaysia will follow suit and implement legislation for plain packaging for tobacco products. The justification supporting such legislation is the overriding health concerns. However, there are strong arguments that plain packaging regulations may usurp the rights conferred by the Malaysian Trademarks Act for the protection of trademarks, and may also breach a fundamental right and liberty accorded by the Federal Constitution of Malaysia which states that no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law. In addition, Malaysia may also risk violating the spirit and objectives of several international and ASEAN treaties which Malaysia is a signatory to. There is also the overall principle of proportionality, i.e. not only must any legislation or regulation be enacted for a legitimate purpose, it must also be proportionate in scope and effect. IP owners affected by such legislation argue that plain packaging legislation goes beyond what is reasonable to protect public health. It is contended that there is no study or evidence which conclusively proves that plain packaging would have at least reasonable prospects of decreasing smoking. An adult who has made a conscious and well-informed decision to smoke will not likely to be deterred by unattractive packaging. A consumer s decision to purchase cigarettes may not be heavily motivated by the attractiveness or appeal of its packaging. Rather, it is the physical effect derived from smoking which encourages a consumer to continue purchasing cigarettes. On this basis, it is argued that the implementation of plain packaging regulations do not appear to be rationally connected to the objective of reducing the purchase of cigarettes in the interest of public health. The above issues are not easy issues for any legislator to grapple with and it will be interesting to see the outcome of the WTO decision in 2016 in response to WTO complaints lodged against Australia. CHEW KHERK YING / JAESY YAP Partner / Associate Wong & Partners The role of the Registrar of Trade Marks in rectification and expungement proceedings In the case of Ho Tack Sien & Ors v. Rotta Research Laboratorium S.p.A & Anor; Registrar Of Trade Marks (Intervener) & Another Appeal [2015] 4 CLJ 20, the plaintiff, who is a registered proprietor of the 'Viatril-S' mark for pharmaceutical products in Malaysia, had succeeded in an action against the defendants in the High Court for infringement and passing off of the plaintiff's mark and obtained an order to expunge the 'Artril-250' mark from the register. The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's decision but set aside the plaintiff's claim for
4 expungement. The court held that notwithstanding infringement was established, the court could still elect not to allow expungement of the 'Artril-250' mark. The Court of Appeal also held that the Registrar of Trade Marks should be made a party in a rectification or expungement proceeding and the registrar's evidence be heard before the High Court made a finding on the plaintiff's application for expungement. The plaintiffs filed two appeals before the Federal Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The issues raised were the proper role of the registrar in rectification and expungement proceedings; whether evidence of registrar is material in proving trade mark infringement and whether it is a pre-requisite to name the registrar as a party to the proceeding. While Section 62 of the Malaysian Trade Marks Act states that the registrar shall have the right to appear and be heard in any legal proceedings where relief involves rectification of the register and shall appear if so directed by the court, the Federal Court held that section 62 of Act cannot be read to mean that the Registrar ought to be made a party in a rectification or expungement proceedings, otherwise the Registrar would be placed in an invidious position of participating in the proceedings in favour of one side or the other, and would destroy the neutrality of his office. There was no necessity to include the Registrar as a party where there was no cause of action against the Registrar. The Federal Court further confirmed that neither the court nor the registrar has discretion to allow a mark that was wrongfully registered to remain on the register. It is the duty of a registered proprietor or owner of an aggrieved mark to bring an action in court for rectification and expungement proceedings. The Court of Appeal have wrongly relied on section 40(1)(f) of the Act which provides that the use of an identical mark do not constitute infringement if it is "in exercise of the right to the use of that trade mark given by registration as provided by this Act" and had disregard section 35(1) of the Act and other provisions which provides that the defendants could use the mark only if it was validly registered. The Federal Court disagreed with the position and held that a mark registered by the Registrar does not constitute prima facie a valid trade mark but a rebuttable presumption. The Federal Court made reference to the case of Industria De Diseno Textil SA v. Edition Concept Sdn.Bhd [2005] 2 CLJ 357 and held that registration is not a defence in relation to marks which were wrongfully entered on the Register. The case clarifies the role of registrar in relation to rectification and expungement proceedings and the position in Malaysia that the defence accorded under section 40(1)(f) of the Act can be relied only if the mark is validly registered. CHEW KHERK YING / WOO WAI TENG Partner / Associate Wong & Partners The Extent of Protection of Well-Known Marks in Malaysia Article 6bis of the Paris Convention and Article 16 of the TRIPS Agreement (collectively, Articles ) have traditionally been the leading treaty provisions that set out the standard of well-known trade marks. In Malaysia, the Articles are incorporated into the Trade Marks Act 1976 ("TMA") under section 14(2) and
5 Regulation 13B of the Trade Marks Regulations 1997 ( TMR ) sets out the criteria to be considered when determining whether a mark is a well-known mark. These criteria include the degree of recognition of the mark in the relevant sector of the public, geographical coverage in terms of use and promotion, evidence of successful enforcement and the value associated with the mark. These criteria were endorsed in the case of Dabur India Ltd [2011] 10 CLJ 134 and in the case of Colliers International Property Consultants Inc [2015] 1 LNS 252, where the judge noted that the best evidence to show recognition of well-known marks are unsolicited requests from potential licensees, distributors, or by third parties. Special protection afforded to well-known marks Well-known marks in Malaysia are afforded a special status and have enhanced protection under the TMA, specifically: A well-known mark proprietor can prohibit registration of other marks based on a lower test of near resemblance instead of a likelihood to deceive or cause confusion to the public; and A well-known mark proprietor can also prohibit registration of another mark which is filed for different goods/services from the well-known mark, if the mark is identical or so nearly resembles the well-known such that the use of the mark is associated with the proprietor of the well-known mark and the interests of the proprietor are likely to be damaged by such use. The above provisions have allowed well-known mark proprietors greater ammunition to prevail over oppositions. Injunctive relief In addition to the above, Section 70B of the TMA entitles proprietors of wellknown trade marks to seek an injunction to restrain the use of marks which are similar to the well-known marks or to an essential part of the same in Malaysia in respect of the same goods/services where use is likely to cause confusion. The right to seek an injunction applies irrespective of whether the proprietor of the well-known mark has carried on business in Malaysia. Defensive registrations Prior to the recognition of well-known marks and its entrenched protection under the TMA as discussed above, there was limited protection of well-known marks through "defensive registrations". Essentially, a well-known invented word may be registered as a defensive trade mark in classes of goods/services which are not used by the proprietor without risk of being expunged for non-use. However, section 57 only offers a very narrow form of protection as it will only be applicable to marks which are invented words. There has been very limited use of defensive filings as a result of a very narrow interpretation of what is an "invented word". In the case of Bata Ltd v Sim Ah Ba [2006] 6 MLJ 445, the court held that "to be an invented word it must not only be newly coined, in the sense of not being already current in the English language, but must be such as not to convey any meaning, or at any rate, any obvious meaning."
6 Challenges ahead Notwithstanding a clear recognition of well-known marks and the special protection afforded to the same, there has only been a handful of marks which have been declared as well-known in Malaysia. This is primarily due to the absence of any regime for registration of well-known trade mark at the Trade Marks Registry. It appears that the only way for a mark to be recognised as a well-known trade mark in Malaysia would be by way of a court declaration or the Registry's decision in an opposition or hearing. Legislators ought to consider inclusion of new provisions in the TMA for registration of wellknown marks. Such provisions would provide a formal process allowing wellknown marks to be registered and for well-known marks proprietors to fully utilize the existing provisions enacted for the protection of well-known marks in Malaysia. CHEW KHERK YING / WOO WAI TENG Partner / Associate Wong & Partners Back to top Singapore High Court Invalidates "Manchester" Mark for Cigarettes The Singapore High Court recently invalidated a trade mark for cigarettes 2 years after it was validly registered, finding that the mark, being similar to an earlier mark and registered for identical goods, was likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the cigarettes. Facts In the case of Jamal Abdulnaser Mahmoud Al Mahamid v Global Tobacco Manufacturers (International) Sdn Bhd [2015] SGHC 42, the plaintiff and defendant each owned registered trade marks in respect of cigarettes. The plaintiff's mark (the "Plaintiff's Mark"), was registered in Singapore on 7 June 2005, and is used on cigarettes sold dutyfree, usually to ship chandlers and sailors. The mark has been registered in over 34 countries and was first used in Singapore in The defendant's mark (the "Defendant's Mark"),
7 was registered in Singapore on 29 November At the time of its registration, no objections were raised by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, and no opposition was filed. The Defendant s cigarettes have been sold in Singapore since November In 2014, the plaintiff commenced proceedings seeking invalidation of the Defendant's Mark. Grounds of Invalidity The plaintiff argued that the Defendant's Mark should be invalidated on 4 grounds, namely: a. s 23(3)(a)(i) read with s 8(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap. 332) (the "TMA"), as the Defendant's Mark was similar to the Plaintiff's Mark, and there was a likelihood of confusion; b. s 23(3)(b) read with s 8(7)(a) of the TMA as the use of the Defendant's Mark amounted to passing off; c. s 23(1) read with s 7(6) of the TMA as the defendant's application for the registration of the Defendant's Mark was made in bad faith; and d. s 23(3)(a)(iii) read with s 8(4) of the TMA as given that the Plaintiff's Mark was well-known in Singapore, the use of the Defendant's Mark indicated a connection between the parties, and there was a likelihood of confusion because of such use. Similar Marks on Identical Goods The Court applied the step-by-step methodology by assessing: (i) similarity between the trade marks in question; (ii) the registration of the marks for identical or similar goods; and (iii) the existence of a likelihood of confusion among the public owing to the similarity. On the similarity of marks the Court found that the Plaintiff's Mark and the Defendant's Mark were visually, aurally and conceptually similar. The "Manchester" word featured as the dominant visual feature in both marks, and when read, both marks were aurally similar. Conceptually, the Court found that some ambiguity may have been intended, for the image to be evoked from the mark to be whatever is triggered in the minds of the consumer by the word "Manchester", but ultimately the ideas triggered revolved around the city; England or Great Britain; or the football teams. Since there was no dispute that the goods in question were identical, the Court moved on to consider whether there was a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of the goods because of the marks. The Court was satisfied that the relevant consumer of cigarettes would be confused, since the two marks are in respect of identical goods, and there was a high degree of similarity between the marks. Both marks are dominated by the word "Manchester", and a consumer would be hard put to recall the differences, which are of minor detail only. As such, the Court declared that the registration for the Defendant's Mark was invalid. Other Grounds
8 The Court found that the other 3 grounds for invalidity were not made out. i) Invalidation on grounds of bad faith In order to establish that there was bad faith on the part of the defendant in registering the Defendant's Mark, the plaintiff had to show that the defendant's conduct fell short of normally accepted standards of commercial behavior, and that the defendant knew of facts which, if known to an ordinary honest person, would have made that person realise that there would be a breach of those standards. The mere fact that the defendant knew of the earlier registration of the Plaintiff's Mark was insufficient to constitute bad faith, and something akin to exploitation of dishonesty was required. This was not shown in the present case. ii) Invalidation on grounds of Passing off In relation to passing off, the Court found that the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff was not sufficient to establish goodwill in the Plaintiff's Mark. The Court held that goodwill is the attractive force that pulls consumers to a particular business. Goodwill may be shown through various means, including sales figures, in appropriate circumstances. However, although the Plaintiff adduced evidence to show that his sales of cigarettes rose from US$85,000 in 2010 to over US$400,000 in 2012, the Court held that sales alone do not establish goodwill. It was explained that whilst sales may be indicative of goodwill, but it would not, in and of itself, be goodwill. There must be evidence shown that consumers were attracted to the Plaintiff s product. The Court held that beyond the sales, there was scant evidence adduced that showed that the Plaintiff s product had any attractive force. The Plaintiff referred to the use of marketing materials but this again was held not to be sufficient to establish attractive force. In addition, the Court held that there was insufficient evidence of damage. In order to make out damage for passing off, the Plaintiff had to show that there was either blurring of the Plaintiff s and the Defendant s goods, or tarnishing of the Plaintiff s product. Here, whilst the Plaintiff adduced evidence of a drop in sales from 2012 to 2013, the Court held that there can be many explanations for a drop in sales, misrepresentation by the Defendant being only one of the various possible causes. Thus, the invalidation on the grounds of passing off was also dismissed. iii) Invalidation on grounds of well known mark protection With regard to this ground of invalidation, this failed largely because the Plaintiff did not adduce sufficient evidence to prove that its mark was well known in Singapore. In this regard, no survey evidence was adduced, the sales information relating to sales in Singapore was limited, and the evidence of its distribution of marketing materials was also held to have fell short. Here, the Court emphasized that it was not sufficient to merely show that the Plaintiff's mark was "known"; it must be "well known". Comments The fact that the marks were registered in respect of identical goods was of significance in this case. Since both marks were applied to cigarettes, the degree of similarity between the marks inevitably gave rise to a finding of a likelihood of confusion.
9 What was more interesting was the Court's comments in relation to his analysis of the grounds of passing off. The Court commented on the need to show a certain "attractive force" before goodwill has been established, and it has previously been accepted that such "attractive force" can be established by showing substantive sales. As acknowledged by the Judge, any individual can decide to purchase a particular brand of products for a variety of reasons including "price and quality". However, could it not also be argued that such indications of price and quality are intrinsically linked to a brand which is recognized by a customer? It was also suggested that sales to ships may not be particularly compelling as customers there may not have had a choice. Nevertheless, could it not be that these customers, having been "forced" to purchase such a brand, may end up getting used to it and start looking for such brand even when a selection of brands is available? There is thus some concern that the Court may have raised the test for proving goodwill to level that is unduly onerous for a potential plaintiff. It remains to be seen the extent to which such requirements of proof will impact a case outside the context of an invalidation setting. ANGELINE LEE Principal Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow Challenges in protecting Shape Marks - Insights from the Nestle v. Petra Foods dispute over the Kit Kat shape mark The case of Societe Des Produits Nestlé SA and another v Petra Foods Ltd and another [2014] SGHC 252 saw the Singapore High Court consider the registrability and enforcement of shape marks under the Singapore trade mark regime in a landmark ruling. The appeal arising from the High Court judgment was just heard before the full five-judge Court of Appeal on 31 July The key issue being considered, was Petra Foods's attempt to invalidate Nestle's shape marks for the two-finger and four-finger shapes of its Kit Kat chocolate bars for non-registrability under the Trade Marks Act ("TMA"). Argument revolved around statutory exceptions that bar registration of shape marks. Under the Technical Result Exception, a shape cannot be registered where it consists exclusively of the shape of the goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result. The High Court identified that the essential characteristics of the shapes were the rectangular slab, the presence of breaking grooves, and the number of grooves and fingers, and that each of these features was necessary for a specific, though different, technical result. The rectangular slab was necessary for efficient manufacture; the breaking grooves for facilitating the breaking up of the chocolate bar; and the number of grooves and fingers to achieve the desired portion size. Thus, it was held in the High Court that the Technical Result Exception applied and Nestle's shape marks were vulnerable to invalidation. The Nature Exception applies where the mark consists exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves. On the facts, Nestle's shape marks were registered for "chocolate-coated bars and wafers". The High Court had found that there is no natural shape for a chocolate-coated bar or wafer and so the Nature Exception does not apply.
10 The Substantial Value Exception applies where the mark consists exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods. In applying this exception, the High Court considered whether Nestle's shape marks had such an eyecatching design as to give them substantial value and concluded that the taste and feel of the Kit Kat product depended on many factors, and its shape was but one of the considerations. Amongst the key points argued before the Court of Appeal was whether manufacturing process should be considered when deciding on the Technical Result Exception. Nestle argued that considerations of the manufacturing process necessary for achieving the shape should not be a relevant factor as the manufacturing process was distinct from any Technical Result that could be achieved by the shape itself. This was countered by Petra Foods' argument that if it is established that the shape was dictated by a function, the real monopoly is not over the shape but over the function and the technical solutions, which would be against public policy. Nestle also argued that the shape of its Kit Kat bars have acquired distinctiveness through years of use, and performed the function of a trade mark, as a badge of origin. However, Petra Foods disputed this, contending that Nestle's marketing of its chocolate bars has always focused on the name "Kit Kat", and not the shape of the bars themselves. Parties also argued over the extent to which results of a survey conducted by Nestle were helpful to its case. Whilst Nestle focused on the fact that the survey showed that members of the public would recognize the shape of its Kit Kat Product even without any marks imprinted on the shape, Petra Foods argued that the survey was flawed as it does not address the fact that at the point of sale, all members of the public are able to see is the wrapper along with the marks set out in the wrapper. The Parties' arguments rang of the age-old conflict between IP protection and market competition, each attempting to convince the Court that policy demands a ruling in their favour. The industry is awaiting eagerly for the judgment to be issued, hoping that the Court of Appeal will clarify the position on the registration of shape marks and scope of exceptions in Singapore. ANDY LECK / CHEAH YEW KUIN Managing Principal / Local Principal Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow Back to top Recognised by the IAM Patent 1000 We would also like to take this opportunity to announce our recent success at the
11 IAM Patent 1000 rankings for Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow and Wong & Partners were ranked for "Litigation and Transactions" in Singapore and Malaysia respectively. Andy Leck and Chew Kherk Ying and were also recognised in the individual rankings. IAM Patent 1000 ranks the leading private practice patent professionals and firms based on research involving 1,500 interviews with attorneys at law, patent attorneys and in-house counsel. In Asia Pacific the rankings also cover firms in Australia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan and Thailand. The full online rankings are available here. Back to top Privacy Policy This was sent to: This was sent by name address city.state zip code Baker & McKenzie International is a Swiss Verein with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "partner" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Before you send to Baker & McKenzie, please be aware that your communications with us through this message will not create a lawyer-client relationship with us. Do not send us any information that you or anyone else considers to be confidential or secret unless we have first agreed to be your lawyers in that matter. Any information you send us before we agree to be your lawyers cannot be protected from disclosure.
Newsletter February 2018
Intellectual Property Singapore Newsletter February 2018 In This Issue: Guccitech Industries (Private Ltd) v Guccio Gucci SpA [2018] SGIPOS 1 Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma
More informationMALAYSIA COUNTRY REPORT FOR APAA 2015 TRADE MARK COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENTS:- Legislative
(I) (i) MALAYSIA COUNTRY REPORT FOR APAA 2015 TRADE MARK COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENTS:- Legislative There was no recent development or change in the Malaysian Trade Marks Act (ii) Other The ASEAN TMview website
More informationEnforceability of IP Agreements and Enforcement Strategies
Enforceability of IP Agreements and Enforcement Strategies MIP Asia-Pacific Forum 2011 Kherk Ying Chew, Kuala Lumpur Celeste Ang, Singapore Adolf Panggabean, Jakarta 29 September 2011 / Hong Kong Baker
More informationNewsletter December 2017
Intellectual Property Singapore Newsletter December 2017 In This Issue: Louis Vuitton Malletier v Megastar Shipping Pte Ltd and other suits [2017] SGHC 305 Starbucks Corporation v Morinaga Nyugyo Kabushiki
More informationTRADE MARKS ACT (CHAPTER 332)
TRADE MARKS ACT (CHAPTER 332) History Act 46 of 1998 -> 1999 REVISED EDITION -> 2005 REVISED EDITION An Act to establish a new law for trade marks, to enable Singapore to give effect to certain international
More informationTrademark dispute settlement in Malaysia: A comparative analysis with the TRIPS and the Paris convention
Vol. 9(2), pp. 9-25, July 2017 DOI:10.5897/JLCR2016.0247 Article Number: DAEBDB265459 ISSN 2006-9804 Copyright 2017 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/jlcr Journal
More informationTrade Marks Act* (Act No. 11 of 1955, as last amended by Act No. 31 of 1997) ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Trade Marks Act* (Act No. 11 of 1955, as last amended by Act No. 31 of 1997) ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Short title... 1 Interpretation... 2 The Register Register of Trade Marks... 3 Application of
More informationDesigns. A Global Guide. Malaysia. Henry Goh & Co Sdn Bhd Dave A Wyatt
Designs 2018 A Global Guide Malaysia Henry Goh & Co Sdn Bhd Dave A Wyatt Malaysia Henry Goh & Co Sdn Bhd Author Dave A Wyatt Legal framework The protection of industrial designs in Malaysia is governed
More informationAct No. 8 of 2015 BILL
Legal Supplement Part A to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 54, No. 64, 16th June, 2015 Fifth Session Tenth Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Act No. 8 of
More informationIP MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA: TRADEMARKS & DESIGNS
IP MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA: TRADEMARKS & DESIGNS The aim of this article is to inform practitioners and IP owners the possibilities available to them for the protection of trademarks and registered designs
More informationLegal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 53, No. 152, 4th December, No. 22 of 2014
Legal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 53, No. 152, 4th December, 2014 2002 No. 22 of 2014 Fifth Session Tenth Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
More informationAct 17 Trademarks Act 2010
ACTS SUPPLEMENT No. 7 3rd September, 2010. ACTS SUPPLEMENT to The Uganda Gazette No. 53 Volume CIII dated 3rd September, 2010. Printed by UPPC, Entebbe, by Order of the Government. Act 17 Trademarks Act
More informationTRUE AUSSIE TRADE MARK LICENCE APPLICATION AUSTRALIAN USERS
TRUE AUSSIE TRADE MARK LICENCE APPLICATION AUSTRALIAN USERS THIS SECTION IS FOR MLA USE ONLY Date of Commencement Licensed trade mark Term Type of licence 12 months unless terminated earlier in accordance
More informationTRADE MARKS ACT, 1999
GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH A DRAFT BILL OF THE PROPOSED TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 Prepared in the light of the complete report made by the Bangladesh Law Commission recommending promulgation
More informationPlain Packaging Questionnaire
Plain Packaging Questionnaire National Group: Contributors: Canada Auerbach, Jonathan Ashton, Toni Date: August 16, 2013 Questions Please answer the following questions. For each of questions 1) 10) below,
More informationClient Alert March 2017
Dispute Resolution Singapore Client Alert March 2017 Rong Shun Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd v C.P. Ong Construction Pte Ltd For More Information: Nandakumar Ponniya Principal +65 6434 2663 nandakumar.ponniya
More informationCentral Government Act The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Central Government Act The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 THE TRADE AND MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1958 ACT NO. 43 OF 1958 [ 17th October, 1958.] An Act to provide for the registration and better protection
More informationLEGAL SYSTEMS IN ASEAN SINGAPORE CHAPTER 5 BUSINESS LAW (PART 4): THE LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
LEGAL SYSTEMS IN ASEAN SINGAPORE CHAPTER 5 BUSINESS LAW (PART 4): THE LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Gerald TAN Senior Associate, OC Queen Street LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS A. FOUNDATIONS OF THE INTELLECTUAL
More informationBELIZE TRADE MARKS ACT CHAPTER 257 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000
BELIZE TRADE MARKS ACT CHAPTER 257 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the authority of
More informationTRADE MARKS ACT 1996 (as amended)
Amended by: Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (28/2000) Patents (Amendments) Act 2006 (31/2006) TRADE MARKS ACT 1996 (as amended) S.I. No. 622 of 2007 European Communities (Provision of services concerning
More informationMalaysia Malaisie Malaysia. Report Q192. in the name of the Malaysian Group. Acquiescence (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
Malaysia Malaisie Malaysia Report Q192 in the name of the Malaysian Group Acquiescence (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights Questions 1) The Groups are invited to indicate if their
More informationThe Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 30 th December, 1999, and is hereby published for general information: The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and
More informationKingdom of Bhutan The Industrial Property Act enacted on July 13, 2001 entry into force: 2001 (Part III, Sections 17 to 23: May 1, 2009)
Kingdom of Bhutan The Industrial Property Act enacted on July 13, 2001 entry into force: 2001 (Part III, Sections 17 to 23: May 1, 2009) TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Title 2. Commencement 3.
More informationPakistan. Contributing firm Khursheed Khan & Associates. Author Zulfiqar Khan. World Trade Organisation Agreement and the Paris Convention.
Pakistan Contributing firm Khursheed Khan & Associates Author Zulfiqar Khan Legal framework In Pakistan, trademark protection is governed by the Trademarks Ordinance 2001 and the Trademarks Rules 2004.
More informationWHAT IS A PATENT AND WHAT DOES IT PROTECT?
WHAT IS A PATENT AND WHAT DOES IT PROTECT? A patent is a monopoly granted by the government for an invention that works or functions differently from other inventions. It is necessary for the invention
More informationCAMBODIA Trademark Law The Law Concerning Marks, Trade Names and Acts of Unfair Competition as amended on February 07, 2002
CAMBODIA Trademark Law The Law Concerning Marks, Trade Names and Acts of Unfair Competition as amended on February 07, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 General Provisions Article 1 Article 2 Article 3
More informationTrade Marks Act 1994
Trade Marks Act 1994 An unofficial consolidation of the Trade Marks Act 1994 as amended by: $ the Trade Marks (EC Measures Relating to Counterfeit Goods) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/1444) (1 st July 1995);
More informationSingapore Court Enforces China Ruling in Landmark Judgment
Singapore Court Enforces China Ruling in Landmark Judgment Introduction The Singapore High Court has issued a landmark judgment in what is believed to be the first instance of enforcement of a judgment
More informationReports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 16 September 2015 *
Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 16 September 2015 * (Reference for a preliminary ruling Trade marks Directive 2008/95/EC Article 3(3) Concept of distinctive character acquired through
More informationPATENTS COMMITTEE REPORT MALAYSIA By Clara Yip and Caroline Francis. 1. Legislative Changes
PATENTS COMMITTEE REPORT MALAYSIA By Clara Yip and Caroline Francis 1. Legislative Changes There were no amendments to the Patents Act 1983 nor its 1986 Regulations since the last report submitted in Singapore.
More informationTRADE MARKS TRADE MARKS
[CH.322 1 TRADE MARKS CHAPTER 322 TRADE MARKS ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. PART I REGISTRATION OF TRADE MARKS 2. Interpretation. 3. Register of trade 4. Trust not to be entered on register.
More informationCHAPTER 416 TRADEMARKS ACT
To regulate Trademarks TRADEMARKS [CAP. 416. 1 CHAPTER 416 TRADEMARKS ACT ACT XVI of 2000. 1st January, 2001 PART I PRELIMINARY 1. The short title of this Act is Trademarks Act. 2. In this Act, unless
More informationThe Canadian Abridgment edigests -- Intellectual Property
IPY.II.4.c.iii The Canadian Abridgment edigests -- Intellectual Property 2012-20 May 14, 2012 Classification Number: II.4.c.iii Patents -- Validity of patent -- Invention -- Obviousness gear infringed
More informationThis document gives a brief summary of the patent application process. The attached chart shows the most common patent protection routes.
The patent system Introduction This document gives a brief summary of the patent application process. The attached chart shows the most common patent protection routes. Patents protect ideas and concepts
More informationUNITED KINGDOM Trade Marks Act Last updated on 27 April 2017.
UNITED KINGDOM Trade Marks Act Last updated on 27 April 2017. TABLE OF CONTENTS ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I REGISTERED TRADE MARKS Introductory 1. 2. Grounds for refusal of registration 3. 4. 5. 6.
More informationThe Trade Mark Act 2013, a Practical Overview
Legislation Definitions Registering a trade mark Infringement The Trade Mark Act 2013, a Practical Overview On 1 September 2015, the long anticipated Trade Marks Act 2013 (the New Act) will come into force.
More informationCHAPTER TEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
CHAPTER TEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 1. The objectives of this Chapter are to: Article 10.1 Objectives facilitate the production and commercialisation of innovative and creative products and the provision
More informationPATENT. Copyright Henry Goh & Co Sdn Bhd
PATENT Please note that the information contained in this booklet is presented in good faith for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Kindly contact us should you have any specific
More informationVenezuela. Contributing firm De Sola Pate & Brown
Venezuela Contributing firm De Sola Pate & Brown Authors Irene De Sola Lander Partner Richard Nicholas Brown Partner José Gutiérrez Rodríguez Associate 353 Venezuela De Sola Pate & Brown 1. Legal framework
More informationIN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION BETWEEN CHELSEA TEA COMPANY (CTC) (CLAIMANT) AND ALMOND TEA COMPANY (ATC) (RESPONDENT)
1026 - R THE 11 TH LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION IN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION 2016 BETWEEN CHELSEA TEA COMPANY (CTC) (CLAIMANT) AND ALMOND TEA COMPANY (ATC) (RESPONDENT)
More informationTHE TRADE MARKS ACT, (Act No. 19 of 2009 dated 24 March 2009)
THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 2009 (Act No. 19 of 2009 dated 24 March 2009) An Act to repeal the existing law and to re-enact the same with amendments and to consolidate the laws relating to trade marks. Whereas
More informationLEGAL DEVELOPMENTS. The important legal updates from the previous quarter are summarized below: Trade Marks Rules, 2017 Notified
z This Newsletter brings to you the IP updates during the first quarter of this year. The first quarter saw remarkable changes in trademark practice and procedure in India. With substantial changes in
More informationAPPLICABILITY TO SOUTH WEST AFRICA:
Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Copyright Act 9 of 1916 (SA), certain sections only (SA GG 727) came into force on date of publication: 15 April 1916 Only the portions of this Act relating to patents
More informationEUROPEAN UNION Council Regulation on the Community Trade Mark No. 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 ENTRY INTO FORCE: April 13, 2009
EUROPEAN UNION Council Regulation on the Community Trade Mark No. 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 ENTRY INTO FORCE: April 13, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preamble TITLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1 Community
More informationMinister of Human Resources, Malaysia v Diamet Klang (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2015] 2 AMR 659; [2013] 1 LNS * 1466 (CA)
Legal Updates April 2015 Cases Administrative Law Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia v Diamet Klang (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2015] 2 AMR 659; [2013] 1 LNS * 1466 (CA) Whether (i) minister
More information11th. Edition The Baker McKenzie International Arbitration Yearbook. Indonesia
11th Edition 2017-2018 The Baker McKenzie International Arbitration Yearbook Indonesia 2018 Arbitration Yearbook Indonesia Indonesia Andi Yusuf Kadir 1 and Reno Hirdarisvita 2 A. Legislation and rules
More informationIRELAND Trade Marks Act as amended up to and including the February 2, 2016
IRELAND Trade Marks Act as amended up to and including the February 2, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I Preliminary and General 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Orders, regulations and
More informationUK (England and Wales)
Intellectual Property 2007/08 UK (England and Wales) UK (England and Wales) Ian Kirby and Rochelle Pizer, Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP www.practicallaw.com/2-234-5952 Registering a trade mark 1. What marks
More informationGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (Law Division)
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (Law Division) THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1940 (V of 1940) (As modified up to the 11 th March, 1979) SECTIONS 1. Short title, extent and commencement.
More informationNovartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Co
This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore
More informationa/ Disputes among individuals over copyright to literature, artistic or scientific works or derivative works;
THE SUPREME PEOPLE S COURT - THE SUPREME PEOPLE S PROCURACY - THE MINISTRY OF CULTURE, SPORTS AND TOURISM - THE MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY - THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE JOINT CIRCULAR No. 02/2008/TTLT-TANDTC-VKSNDTC-
More informationIsrael. Contributing firm Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer
Contributing firm Authors Nachman Cohen Zedek, Dor Cohen Zedek and Yossi Markovich Selection, clearance and registration Israel became party to the Madrid Protocol on September 1 2010. As of September
More informationPATENT. Copyright Henry Goh & Co. Sdn. Bhd.
PATENT Please note that the information contained in this booklet is presented in good faith for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Kindly contact us should you have any specific
More informationREPUBLIC OF VANUATU BILL FOR THE PATENTS ACT NO. OF 1999
REPUBLIC OF VANUATU BILL FOR THE PATENTS ACT NO. OF 1999 Arrangement of Sections PART 1 PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 1. Interpretation PART 2 PATENTABILITY 2. Patentable invention 3. Inventions not patentable
More informationCZECH REPUBLIC Trademark Act No. 441/2003 Coll. of December 3, 2003 ENTRY INTO FORCE: April 1, 2004
CZECH REPUBLIC Trademark Act No. 441/2003 Coll. of December 3, 2003 ENTRY INTO FORCE: April 1, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I TRADE MARKS CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS Definition of a trade mark Section
More informationThis document gives a brief summary of the patent application process. The attached chart shows the most common patent protection routes.
ELLIS TERRY The Patent System Introduction This document gives a brief summary of the patent application process. The attached chart shows the most common patent protection routes. Patents protect ideas
More informationhaving regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2013)0161),
P7_TA-PROV(2014)0118 Community trade mark ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 February 2014 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council
More informationNORWAY Trade Marks Act Act No. 4 of March 3, 1961 as last amended by Act No. 8 of March 26, 2010 Entry into force of last amending Act: July 1, 2013.
NORWAY Trade Marks Act Act No. 4 of March 3, 1961 as last amended by Act No. 8 of March 26, 2010 Entry into force of last amending Act: July 1, 2013. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. General Provisions Section
More informationTRADEMARKS IN POLAND PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Slawomira Piotrowska Jaromir Piwowar PATPOL 162J, Nowoursynowska Str. 02-776 Warsaw Poland e-mail: slawomira.piotrowska@patpol.com.pl jaromir.piwowar@patpol.com.pl TRADEMARKS IN POLAND PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
More informationHigh Court Rules That It Has No Original Jurisdiction To Revoke Patents
High Court Rules That It Has No Original Jurisdiction To Revoke Patents Introduction In patent infringement suits, it is a common defence to assert that the claims of the patent in question are invalid.
More informationTrademarks and the USMCA: Action or Inaction on Trade-Related Trademark Issues?
Trademarks and the USMCA: Action or Inaction on Trade-Related Trademark Issues? October 11, 2018 By Cynthia Rowden and Scott MacKendrick After much drama and tension, negotiations to replace the North
More informationAUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017
AUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introductory 1 Short title 2 Commencement
More informationLaw on Trademarks and Indications of Geographical Origin
Law on Trademarks and Indications of Geographical Origin Adopted: Entered into Force: Published: 16.06.1999 15.07.1999 Vēstnesis, 01.07.1999, Nr. 216 With the changes of 08.11.2001 Chapter I General Provisions
More informationThere were no amendments to the Patents Act 1983 or the Patents Regulations 1986 since the last report submitted in Hong Kong.
2010 PATENTS COMMITTEE REPORT MALAYSIA 2010 By Tai Foong Lam and Caroline Francis A. Legislative Changes There were no amendments to the Patents Act 1983 or the Patents Regulations 1986 since the last
More informationTrade Marks Act No 194 of 1993
Trade Marks Act No 194 of 1993 [ASSENTED TO 22 DECEMBER, 1993] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT INLAY 1995] (Afrikaans text signed by the State President) To provide for the registration of trade marks, certification
More informationCompilation date: 24 February Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, Registered: 27 February 2017
Patents Act 1990 No. 83, 1990 Compilation No. 41 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017 This compilation includes commenced amendments
More informationOn 18 th May 2011, the Plaintiffs applied for provisional injunction orders. and successfully obtained the orders on 3 rd June 2011.
Short-term Patent Section 129 of Patents Ordinance (Cap 514) Litigation Page 2 to Page 3 Register appearance of product as trade mark Page 3 to Page 4 Patent Infringement or Not? (RE: High Court Action,
More informationTAMAK DISTRIBUTION LTD & ANOR v PENTAGON UNIVERSAL LTD IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS. [Court of Civil Appeal]
TAMAK DISTRIBUTION LTD & ANOR v PENTAGON UNIVERSAL LTD 2015 SCJ 86 SCR No. 1152 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS [Court of Civil Appeal] In the matter of: 1. Tamak Distribution Ltd 2. Tamak Retail Ltd
More informationACT ON TRADE MARKS PART ONE TRADE MARKS CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS
Act No. 441/2003 Coll. of December 3, 2003, on Trademarks and on Amendments to Act No. 6/2002 Coll. on Judgments, Judges, Assessors and State Judgment Administration and on Amendments to Some Other Acts
More informationSupported by. A global guide for practitioners
Supported by Yearbook 2009/2010 A global guide for practitioners France Contributing firm Granrut Avocats Authors Richard Milchior Partner Estelle Benattar Associate 95 France Granrut Avocats 1. Legal
More informationCANADA Industrial Design Act as amended by c. 34 of 2001 Current to October 31, 2012
CANADA Industrial Design Act as amended by c. 34 of 2001 Current to October 31, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS SHORT TITLE 1. Short title INTERPRETATION 2. Definitions PART I INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS Registration 3.
More informationContributing firm Granrut Avocats
France Contributing firm Granrut Avocats Authors Richard Milchior and Séverine Charbonnel 1. Legal framework National French trademark law is governed by statute, as France is a civil law country. The
More informationLaw on Trademarks and Geographical Indications
Disclaimer: The English language text below is provided by the Translation and Terminology Centre for information only; it confers no rights and imposes no obligations separate from those conferred or
More informationIsrael Israël Israel. Report Q191. in the name of the Israeli Group by Tal BAND. Relationship between trademarks and geographical indications
Israel Israël Israel Report Q191 in the name of the Israeli Group by Tal BAND Relationship between trademarks and geographical indications Questions I) Analysis of current legislation and case law 1) Do
More informationOFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE PROVISIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT IN KOSOVO / PRISHTINA: YEAR II / NO. 14 / 01 JULY 2007 Law No.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE PROVISIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT IN KOSOVO / PRISHTINA: YEAR II / NO. 14 / 01 JULY 2007 Law No. 02/L-54 ON TRADEMARKS The Assembly of Kosovo, Pursuant to the Chapter
More informationPROVISIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF SELF GOVERNMENT ON TRADEMARKS
UNITED NATIONS United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo UNMIK NATIONS UNIES Mission d Administration Intérimaire des Nations Unies au Kosovo PROVISIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF SELF GOVERNMENT Law
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT (RAISING THE BAR ACT) 2012
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT (RAISING THE BAR ACT) 2012 AUTHOR: MICHAEL CAINE - PARTNER, DAVIES COLLISON CAVE Michael is a fellow and council member of the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys
More informationIntellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 No., 2013
00-0-0-0 The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Presented and read a first time Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 0 No., 0 (Industry, Innovation, Climate Change,
More informationMALAYSIA Trademarks Regulations as amended by PU (A) 47 of 2011 ENTRY INTO FORCE: February 15, 2011
MALAYSIA Trademarks Regulations as amended by PU (A) 47 of 2011 ENTRY INTO FORCE: February 15, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Citation and commencement. 2. Interpretation. 3. Fees. 4. Forms.
More informationThis Act will be repealed by the Industrial Property Act 1 of 2012 (GG 4907), which has not yet been brought into force. ACT
Trade Marks in South West Africa Act 48 of 1973 (RSA) (RSA GG 3913) came into force in South Africa and South West Africa on 1 January 1974 (see section 82 of Act) APPLICABILITY TO SOUTH WEST AFRICA: The
More information10th Anniversary Edition The Baker McKenzie International Arbitration Yearbook. Malaysia
10th Anniversary Edition 2016-2017 The Baker McKenzie International Arbitration Yearbook Malaysia 2017 Arbitration Yearbook Malaysia Malaysia Elaine Yap 1 A. Legislation and rules A.1 Legislation Arbitration
More informationIP & IT Bytes. November Patents: jurisdiction and declaratory relief
November 2016 IP & IT Bytes First published in the November 2016 issue of PLC Magazine and reproduced with the kind permission of the publishers. Subscription enquiries 020 7202 1200. Patents: jurisdiction
More informationThe Trade Marks Act, 1999 (No. 47 of 1999) [30 th December, 1999] CHAPTER I Preliminary
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (No. 47 of 1999) [30 th December, 1999] An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to trade marks, to provide for registration and better protection of trade marks for goods
More information, No. 26.] Patents, Designs, and Trade-marks Amendment TRADE-MARKS.
298 1939, No. 26.] Patents, Designs, and [3 GEO. VI. New Zealand. Title. 1. Short Title. Commencement. PART I. TRADE-MARKS. 2. Interpretation. REGISTRATION. INFRINGEMENT, AND OTHEl!. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS.
More informationTrade Marks Act (2) If this Act does not commence under subsection (1) before 1 January. No. 156 of An Act relating to trade marks
Trade Marks Act 1994 No. 156 of 1994 An Act relating to trade marks The Parliament of Australia enacts: [Assented to 13 December 1994] PART 1--PRELIMINARY Short title L This Act may be cited as the Trade
More informationAdopted text. - Trade mark regulation
Adopted text - Trade mark regulation The following document is an unofficial summary of the text adopted by the legal affairs committee (JURI) of the European Parliament from 17 December 2013. The text
More informationSingapore High Court Decides on Set-Offs and Costs Implications
Dispute Resolution Singapore High Court Decides on Set-Offs and Costs Implications Introduction In a commercial dispute, it is not uncommon for there to be both claims and counterclaims between the same
More informationLaw On Trade Marks and Indications of Geographical Origin
Text consolidated by Valsts valodas centrs (State Language Centre) with amending laws of: 8 November 2001 [shall come into force on 1 January 2002]; 21 October 2004 [shall come into force on 11 November
More informationZimbabwe Act To amend the Trade Marks Act [Chapter 26:04]
Zimbabwe Act To amend the Trade Marks Act [Chapter 26:04] Enacted by the President and the Parliament of Zimbabwe. Short Title and Date of Commencement 1. (1) This Act may be cited as the Trade Marks Amendment
More informationThe Consolidate Trade Marks Act 1)
Consolidate Act No. 192 of 1 March 2016 The Consolidate Trade Marks Act 1) Publication of the Trade Marks Act, cf. Consolidate Act No. 109 of 24 January 2012 including the amendments which follow from
More informationJanuary 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COPYRIGHT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COPYRIGHT For the purposes of determining whether a defendant had copied the plaintiff s works, held that the defendant s access to the works could be established where these had been
More informationDispute Resolution Around the World. Italy
Dispute Resolution Around the World Italy 2011 Dispute Resolution Around the World Italy Dispute Resolution Around the World Italy Table of Contents 1. Legal System... 1 2. Courts... 1 3. Legal Profession...
More informationNavigating the Framework for Claiming against an Insolvent Company
Navigating the Framework for Claiming against an Insolvent Company Introduction Once a company enters liquidation, its creditors are subject to the statutory framework and common law principles for pursuing
More informationThe Consolidate Trade Marks Act 1)
Consolidate Act No. 90 of 28 January 2009 The Consolidate Trade Marks Act 1) Publication of the Trade Marks Act, cf. Consolidate Act No. 782 of 30 August 2001 including the amendments which follow from
More informationHohmann & Partner Rechtsanwälte Schlossgasse 2, D Büdingen Tel ,
Sec II THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY 3 and the fact that a description is a trade mark or part of a trade mark shall not prevent such trade description being a flase trade description within the meaning
More informationInfringement Or Improvement?
BENNY KONG & YEUNG Solicitors Agents for Patents, Trade Marks and Designs Newsletter December 2010 Bladeless fan Patent registration Novelty 29th Floor, Far East Finance Centre, 16 Harcourt Road, Admiralty,
More informationWORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING
43 rd World Intellectual Property Congress Seoul, Korea WORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING October 21, 2012 John Kim* Admitted to practice in Maryland, the District of Columbia,
More informationIntellectual Property in WTO Dispute Settlement
Intellectual Property and the Judiciary 17 th EIPIN Congress Strasbourg, 30 January 2016 Intellectual Property in WTO Dispute Settlement Roger Kampf WTO Secretariat The views expressed are personal and
More informationTrade Marks Ordinance (New Version),
Trade Marks Ordinance (New Version), 5732 1972 (of May 15, 1972) * TABLE OF CONTENTS Articles Chapter I: Chapter II: Chapter III: Chapter IV: Chapter V: Chapter VI: Interpretation Definitions... 1 Applicability
More informationCOMMUNITY TRADE MARK ORDER 2014
[Draft] Community Trade Mark Order 2014 Article 1 Statutory Document No. XXXX/14 c European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 COMMUNITY TRADE MARK ORDER 2014 Draft laid before Tynwald: 2014 Draft approved
More information