Archive >> June 2008
The extension of life of patents in Mexico The Mexican Constitution states that the exclusivity rights provided therein for inventors are "temporary privileges". Without entering into the discussion about the language used in the Constitution, it is clear that one of the characteristics of the exclusivity rights on inventions is the temporality. Temporality may vary according to each specific intellectual property right. For example, the term of a registered utility model is only 10 years counted from the filing date, while the term of a patent is, as a general rule, 20 years counted from the filing date. In this post I will briefly discuss the extension patents, and specifically the only case of patents extension currently allowed by Mexican law, although probably without having that
Queen Mary University of London has been offering Postgraduate IP since 1980. To qualify for the degree, students must take 3 taught Modules and submit a 15,000 word dessertation. Last October, WIPO officially confirmed QMIPRI as one of the national NGOs admitted as permanent observers to WIPO. Entry Requirements: (in general) A degree in Law, or one with a substantial law content, with at least upper-second class Honours or equivalent. Law graduates with high 2.2. honours and at least 5 years of professional legal experience may also qualify. International students are required to show high scores on english proficiency test (TOEFL - Test of English as a Foreign Language, IELTS - International English Language Testing Service, or the like). No interview is required. Some of the
Mexico is a first-to-file country. Ownership on a trademark may only be obtained by registering the mark with the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO). Trademark applicants must be careful when filing trademark applications. Otherwise, the resulting trademark registration may be either too restrictive, too vague or in the worst-case scenario, completely useless to provide an effective trademark protection. The following are a few tips for trademark applicants in Mexico: What trademark should apply for? a) First, the applicant must register those trademarks that are already being used in Mexico. b) Second, the applicant should register those trademarks that are not yet being used in Mexico, but it plans to start using them in the short or medium terms. It is not necessary to prove use of
Microsoft appealed an earlier jury verdict dated last April, maintaining that Microsoft has infringed a number of Alcatel-Lucent's patents. On Appeal, Judge Marilyn L. Huff refused to reconsider the April jury verdict and ordered Microsoft to pay for additional damages.
In August of 2007, by way of a Practice Notice and with little or no consultation with the public or the intellectual property community, the Canadian Patent Office formally expressed its position that computer programs existing in a transitory state (i.e., signal claims) are forms of energy that do not contain matter and therefore do not constitute patentable subject matter under section 2 of the Patent Act. What little commentary there has been regarding this decision appears to have been focused on whether or not the Patent Office is correct in its assertion that signal claims
The new Trade Marks Act, 1999, came into affect in India on September 15, 2003, giving recognition to well-known trade marks. Just preceding the introduction of the Act comes a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India. In the case of Hardie Trading Ltd. v Addison Paint and Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2003(27) PTC 241 (decided on September 12, 2003) the Supreme Court of India, while deciding a cancellation action has categorically stated that "use" of a trade mark as understood under Indian law may not necessarily be use upon or in physical relation to goods. The court has held that to constitute use there is no requirement for the goods bearing the mark to be physically present and made available in India. The court has cited with approval law wherein it has been held that the
Posted by: César Alexandre Leão Barcellos in Untagged on
Jun 19, 2008
IP NEWS (JUNE/2008): ASTREINTES OR FINE PER DAY IN BRAZILIAN LEGISLATION: According the Brazilian Legislation the "astreintes" or fine per day is applicable to lawsuits in obligations to do or not to do to assuring the practical result similar to accomplishment. The indemnification by loss and damages can occur in the same time of fine in the National Law. The "astreintes" or fine per day originated of French jurisprudence and it is applicable in the Brazilian Legislation too. Many cases of Intellectual Property (Mark, Patent, Copyright) lawsuits is put into practice of "astreintes". By César Alexandre Leão Barcellos, e-mail: cesar@trademarks.com.br, Home Page: www.trademarks.com.br ECOLOGICAL PLASTIC MADE
The Taipei High Administrative Court of Taiwan, ruled in favor of a Taiwanese sports wear company by the name of 'Lutong Enterprise Corporation" ("Lutong") and cancelled the registered trademark "three stripes" of Adidas in Taiwan. Adidas's lawsuit in Taiwan followed the decision of the Intellectual Property Office of Taiwan in 2003 to cancel its "three stripes" registered trademark due to similarities between its trademark to Lutong trademark. After Adidas lost the trial in 2006, she filed another appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court which remanded the case to the Taipei High Administrative Court for reinvestigation in April 2008. Adidas claim was that she was the first one to use the "three stripes" logo as trademark about 30 to 40 years ago, and that this logo became its
Posted by: Ophir Tal in blogging on
Jun 19, 2008
I would like to recommend the Duncan Bucknell blog , which contains a wealth of information and articles in different IP related themes. The posts are very well organized namely in a weekly report of news from all over the world (with indication of the blogs reporting them) and also in scorecards which hold the items categorized after the relevant firms (e.g. - find all IP issues relating to Apple). Just delve
Ranbaxy Laboratories, an India based Drug Company and Pfizer have settled a court dispute over Lipitor, cholesterol lowering drug. The dispute started in 2003 regarding a generic version of the drug that was marketed by Ranbaxy. Pfizer also sue Ranbaxy over patents expiring in 2016 regarding the active ingredient in Lipidor. The Settlement allows Ranbaxy to market the generic version in 2011, keeping copies of the cholesterol pill of the U.S market for an extra 20 months thus protecting 12 billion in sales to Pfizer. The aforementioned settlement also allows Ranbaxy to sell the generic drug on various dates in seven other countries including Canada, Australia and Germany. Pfizer and Ranbaxy also agreed that Ranbaxy will stop contesting the validity of Pfizer patents in several specified
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >> |
|
|
|
 |
Partners |
 |
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
