Tag >> Israel
Section 5, clauses 44-48 in the Israeli Patent Law enables an applicant having a granted patent to file one or more "supplementary patents" associated with the original granted patent, if the supplementary patent discloses an improvement of the invention claimed in the original patent. A supplementary patent does not require having an inventive step or even novelty over the original granted patent it is associated with, and therefore makes it easier for the applicant to add new embodiments to his inventions without having to go through prosecution again. An original granted patent may have multiple supplementary patents associated therewith and the law does not limit the number of associated supplementary patents that can be filed. There are however several limitation to supplementary
In the recently published Registrar Circular No. M.N. 69, dated 24 December 2008 (the "Circular"), the Registrar clarifies the interpretation of "publication in Israel" for the purpose of the novelty requirement in designs. In practice it appears that, although the language of the law requires "local novelty", following the publication of the Circular, the definition of "local" has now been expanded to also include dated publications available over the Internet. Background: According to Section 30 of the Patents and Designs Ordinance (the "Ordinance"), one of the eligibility requirements for designs is that it has "not been published in Israel" prior to the application date. Until now, design applications were examined vis-à-vis design applications filed in Israel before their filing date. The
Posted by: Ophir Tal in prosecution, Israel, Design on
Dec 25, 2008
Posted by: Ophir Tal in USPTO, US, United States, United Kingdom, UK-IPO, UK, russia, PPH, Patent Prosecution Highway, Patent Prosecution, patent, Japan, Israel, intellectual property, Great Britain, Europe, EPO, Denemark, Canada, Austria, Australia on
Dec 08, 2008
Posted by: Meirav Shalem in Labanon, Israel on
Oct 06, 2008
The Lebanese government threatens to sue the Israeli government for distributing Falafel (fried chickpeas balls) abroad. The Lebanese claim that the dish called Falafel belongs to their ancient tradition and culture and that Israel sells this product under the same name claiming it to be an Israeli national food. Although the name "Falafel" was never registered by the Lebanese as a trademark, the Lebanese rely on a precedential case in which Denmark, France and Germany filed a prosecution against Greece claiming that Greece cannot hold a monopoly over the Feta Cheese. Greece won the case since it managed to prove that the Feta Cheese belongs to the Greek people and tradition. The court ruled that the greek industry is the only one allowed to use the name "Feta" for this cheese, since
The Trademark Department of Israel had issued a Decision in the case of Colgate Palmolive Company (Delaware Corporation) and its refusal to limit several words of its trademarks applications by a Disclaimer. A disclaimer demand requires the Applicant to claim that the trademark rights given to the Applicant sare limited and only refer to the combined names and marks of the Applicant's application (e.g. receiving trademark of the combination "Lady Stick" rather of each word individually). This refusal has led to a debate relating to two supposedly complimentary clauses in the Trademarks Law: Clause 21 and Clause 47, debating whether Clause 47 contains the described in Clause 21. Clause 21 specifies the Patent and Trademark Office's right to demand that the Applicant adds a disclaimer
Posted by: Miriam Hackmey in well-known marks, Well Known Marks, Trademarks, trademark, Trade Marks, Lawsuits, law, Israel, famous marks, Decision on
Jul 02, 2008
"Local" VERSACE registrations removed from Israeli Trade Mark Register
In a recent decision dated 29 June 2008, the Israeli Intellectual Property Adjudicator ordered the removal from the register of five registrations in respect of the trade mark Versace in various forms including Hebrew versions of the mark. The registrations were almost 20 years old.
The Israeli proprietor of the removed registrations, Versace 83 Ltd. owned by the Zadik Fur Bros., obtained the registrations at the time after the well known Italian fashion house Gianni Versace S.p.A. withdrew its oppositions. Since 2000, following the expansion of the Israeli "VERSACE" chain and the opening of many branches in prime locations, Gianni Versace S.p.A. took various actions in order to stop the commercial use of the mark and
In a recent correspondence, the IL PTO (Israeli Patent and Trademark Office) has made some clarifications regarding its approach to the registration of three-dimensional trademarks in Israel. This clarification has been made in light of a ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court in the case of August Strock KG vs. Alpha Intuit (referred to herein as AS vs. AI). In this case, AS has prosecuted AI for infringing AS's trademark, which was a graphical image of AS's product (a candy). AI sold and distributed products that had the same shape and design as the product's graphical image (photo) protected by a trademark (rather than by an industrial design). The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Legislation does allow registration of three-dimensional trademarks but it this case, only the
Posted by: ifat ara in Israel on
Apr 29, 2008
In an Israeli civil wrong lawsuit an Internet forum operator (the defendant) had been accused of libel and was obliged to pay a reimbursement of 100,000 NIS (~29,000$) to the plaintiff, a municipal veterinarian. According to the Israeli Magistrates Court, the Internet forum owner injured the reputation and status of the plaintiff in the community by giving stage to different offensive defamations which ascribed the plaintiff deeds of corruptions and bride. The court held that the defendant is responsible in virtue of its capacity as an Internet forum operator and accused her of being negligent for allowing the defaming publications and not removing them from its website. In its decision the court took in to consideration the scope of those injuring publications as well as the long period
Reckitt & Colman (referred to hereinafter as "the applicants") tried to register a trademark that goes by the Hebrew name of " ???? ????? ??? ????" which is translated as "A bladeless shaving kit". The applicants already own another trademark named "Bladeless Razor" registered abroad. The Patents and Trademarks Commissioner (referred to hereinafter as "the Commissioner") rejected their request claiming the trademark is "non-distinctive". In response, the applicants have carried out a survey and showed that many customers use their product; a wide publicity of their product under the Hebrew name of "Bladeless Shaving Kit" in Israel proving
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >> |
|
|
|
 |
Partners |
 |
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
