Tag >> infringement

A significant quantity of counterfeits and pirated goods of all kinds are often crossing the Serbian, Montenegrin and Macedonian state borders, either in transit to the European Union, for end use on the local markets or for transformation and re-export.

The Customs Monitoring services of the Customs authorities in Serbia and Macedonia, effectively closing the borders with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Kosovo and Montenegro have so far proved their


 

The marking of products or services that use industrial property rights (such as patents or registered trademarks), so third parties may be aware of the existence of such intangible assets, provides the right holders with certain benefits. The marking is not an actual obligation, given that failure to mark a product is not illegal by itself nor harms any third party's rights.

Marking a product with the indication of an industrial property right may prevent or discourage third parties from infringing the intellectual property right associated to a product or service. If, in spite of the marking, a third party infringes the patent or trademark right, the measures available for the right holder are also stronger.

There are certain rules about the marking of products provided in the Mexican


Section 221 Bis of the Mexican Industrial Property Law (IPL) provides that the owner of a patent or registered trademark (there are no common-law rights in Mexico) is entitled to claim from the infringer as damages and/or lost of profits at least 40% of the retail price of each infringing product sold by the defendant. The reason of such stipulation is not only to provide monetary relief to the right holder but also to punish the infringer.

Further, section 221 of the IPL states that the right to file a damages claim is independent from the administrative penalties that the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) may impose to the infringer of the corresponding patent or registered trademark.

For some years, the federal courts of appeals ruled that sections 221 and 221 Bis of the IPL


Partners

Sponsored Links