Search results for

Internet entrepreneurs beware. Registering a domain name does not give you an automatic right to the equivalent trade mark.

Due to a substantial general increase in IP activity - increasing numbers of national patent applications etc the need for skilled and well-educated personnel in this field has been continuously increasing particularly during the past few years. This goes for the Swedish Patent Office as well as for industry and private IP practitioners. In order to take care of innovations in industry, one of the best ways is to have in-house skilled IP experts who can promote and recognize internal inventive activity.

Silhouette has bestowed on a trade mark owner a parasitic right to interfere with the distribution of goods which bears little or no relationship to the proper function of the trade mark right.

On May 4 1999, a new Act (14/1999) on Taxes and Public Prices for services provided by the Nuclear Security Council was adopted. This Act contains, among other things, the necessary provisions in order to adapt Spanish legislation to the Trade mark Rights Treaty and Regulation, which was ratified by Spain on March 17 1999.

When applicants appeal Korean Industrial Property Tribunal (KIPT) decisions on unpatentability matters to the Korean Patent Court (KPC), they are usually frustrated at the decisions made by the court. Considering that most of judges at the KPC have limited technical background, it is extremely difficult for an appellant to persuade judges to overturn a KIPT decision sustaining the examiner´ s rejection on a patent application by discussing complex technical principles and theories as to why such an invention should be patentable. In other words, judges at the KPC customarily defer the technical aspects of an invention, ie whether an invention is patentable, to the KIPT because the KIPT is comprised of technical experts whose decisions are usually supported with precise and accurate technical reasons.

Here are some of the highlights of amendments to the Patent Law currently being presented to the Diet: (1) Shortening of the time period for filing a request for examination (Sec 48ter(1)). The time period for filing a request for examination is to be revised to three years from the filing date instead of the seven years as provided for in Section 48ter(1). The proposed provision is to be applied to an application filed on or after October 1 2001. The seven year time limit though provided for in the current law is still to be applied to an application pending on the above effective date of October 1 2001.

Since Estonia started EU accession negotiations in April 1998, one of the main tasks has been to harmonize Estonian legislation with EU Law. Although in the beginning of 1998 the Estonian Trade Mark Law was extensively amended to comply with the Harmonization Directive 89/104 and CTM Regulation No 40/94, there are still remarkable differences.

It is well known that European legislation, in accordance with the principle of the single market, provides for the free circulation of products within the European Union. Any attempt to use the exclusive rights conferred by a trade mark in order to prevent or limit the circulation of products within the territory of the Union is coherently considered as illicit by case law. This is in accordance with the so-called principle of trade mark exhaustion.

Guidelines clarify trade mark law

The Court of First Instance of Madrid has rendered the first Spanish judgment concerning the so-called Year 2000 chaos (Y2K), that is to say, the chaos derived from the fact that most computing systems are unable to differentiate the year 2000 from the year 1900, as they read only the last two numbers.