Search results for

On December 3 1993, the European Union Authorities filed their first proposal of Regulation and Directive relevant to the legal protection of designs. On October 28 1998, Directive 98/71/CE was eventually published, to be validated on a domestic basis in each member state by October 28 2001, and which consists of 21 Whereas... and of 20 sections. This demonstrates though it is widely known anyway how many difficulties there are and remain to be overcome to harmonize design laws which vary throughout the European Union.

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.

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has tightened patent filing rules to encourage early filings.

When Charlene Barshefsky arrives in China in mid-February for the US Trade Representative’s regular visit, she will have her hands full.

Music copyright and the Internet

The EU has taken a big leap towards implementing WIPO’s two December 1996 copyright treaties.

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.