Search results for

Several changes to the German Patent Law became effective on November 1 1998. Among the minor changes is a modification of the name of the patent office which now is Deutsches Patent und Markenamt, to emphasize the increasingly important role of trade mark matters. There are also significant modifications of more relevance to applicants, and these will be briefly commented on below, as far as they relate to filing procedures.

Estonian customs authorities have started an active campaign against pirated and counterfeited goods. Within the last few months, different counterfeited goods bearing such famous trade marks as NIKE, ADIDAS, SALAMANDER and WRANGLER have been seized by customs. Such counterfeited goods are usually of extremely poor quality.

Illegal exemptions to music royalty collection in the US are costing European performers $20 million dollars a year.

When the Trade Marks Act came into force in October 1994, the scope of what constituted a registrable trade mark was broadened.

Joel Smith, Andrea Montanari and Simona Cazzaniga provide an update on the complex Italian regime for protecting industrial designs, in the light of new legislation

On January 28 1999, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 1998 became law in Australia, introducing provisions for the extension of the term of patents relating to pharmaceutical substances.

Recent patent court decisions and also rules of patent practice issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) are changing how the wide spectrum of entities that use computers to conduct fiscal businesses will operate them in the United States, because they now can obtain and assert reliable patent rights against competitors. This legal landscape is evolving from court decisions spanning more than 20 years that define a patent-based framework within which computer technology in particular, computer software can be protected. Software owners have sought such protection because of: (a) recognized limitations in copyrights which protect expression (ie literal lines of computer code), but not ideas (ie the constructs software implement); (b) the substantial financial value software gained during the same decades; and (c) the continuing growth of the businesses that are dependent on computers. It is estimated that by 2001 Internet commerce in the United States will be worth $200 billion. Initially patent protection was not sought for software because of the amount of time involved in obtaining patent rights and also the fact that the Supreme Court (the US court of last resort) has consistently held that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are unpatentable subject matter. Software owners perceived tremendous commercial benefits from patent rights, and these perceptions sustained efforts to seek enforceable frameworks for obtaining reliable patent rights.

The need for a clear problem and solution was demonstrated in a recent decision by Stockholm´ s Tingsrätt (The Stockholm City Court), the first instance for all patent litigation in Sweden. The problem/solution approach is one of the basic principles in European patent practice. In case No. T7-19-97 the validity of European patent 0138152 was tried by the City Court.

By means of Act 50/1998, dated December 30, on Tax, Administrative and Social Measures, which develops and executes General State Budgets for 1999, the Spanish Government has amended both Act 11/1986, dated March 20, on patents and utility models and Act 32/1988, dated November 10, which deals with trade marks. The object of these amendments is, first of all, to establish time limits for procedures filed before the Spanish Trade Marks and Patents Office. Secondly, a new Article 87 is added to Act 32/1988, on trade marks. This article establishes the national rules concerning the transformation in a national trade mark of an international trade mark registered in Spain by virtue of the Madrid Protocol, and which has been cancelled by virtue of Article 6.4 of the Protocol.

On July 23 1998 the Trade Mark Law No. 84/1998 came into force. Section 88 of this Law provides that if a trade mark is infringed, the owner may ask, by way of interlocutory injunction, for the immediate cessation of any infringement until the main trial case is settled and the decision is final.