Tag >> intellectual property
The IP Office of Montenegro is functional since May 28, 2008. The term for validation is November 28th, 2008 In general and as a principle rule, the said Decision provides that all intellectual property rights valid and properly recorded at the IP Office of Serbia & Montenegro until June 3, 2006, or, at the IP Office of Serbia after that date until May 28, 2008 are valid in Montenegro. The validity of granted rights is provided until expiration of the corresponding right in Serbia, until the date when the next annuity or renewal fee is due. No special re-registration or revalidation procedure is required for granted rights and the Decision is introducing the term of “recordal of rights in Montenegro”. It should be noted however, that transfer of files of granted rights from the Serbian IP
In a first-to-file country, such as Mexico, one way of foreseeing if a trademark is available for use and registration is conducting a trademark search with the databases of the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO). There are two main databases that may be consulted in a trademark search: the Industrial Property Gazette that the MPTO issues on monthly basis, and the online phonetic database of the MPTO. Foreign entities that offer search services usually obtain the information from the Industrial Property Gazette, while local agents often use the online database. Unlike the trademarks database of the USPTO or the OHIM, there is no free access to the trademarks database of the MPTO to conduct searches; it is necessary to have a prepaid account. A search conducted using the information
Posted by: Arturo Reyes in trademark, Trade Marks, Reyes Fenig, non use, Mexico, Maintenance Fees, law, lack of use, intellectual property, Cancellation on
Aug 06, 2008
There are two frequent questions I receive from foreign colleagues and Mexican businessmen regarding maintenance of Mexican trademark registrations. One is if it is required to file evidence of use of a trademark with the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) from time to time in order to keep a trademark registration alive. The answer is ‘no'. The other question is: If it is not required by the statute, why some Mexican trademark lawyers insist in this filing every three years? Since 1991 it is not necessary to file statements or evidence of use of a trademark with the MPTO in order to keep a trademark registration in force. It does not mean, however, that stopping using a registered trademark would not have negative consequences. If the use of a registered trademark is interrupted
Posted by: Arturo Reyes in Trademarks, trademark, Trade Marks, Trade Mark, Reyes Fenig, Patents, patent, Mexico, intellectual property, injunction, infringement, Application on
Jul 30, 2008
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
Posted by: Ophir Tal in USPTO, software patent, Software, politics, Patents Opposition, Patents, Patently-O, Patentability, Patent Prosecution, Patent Legislation, patent, Internet Patent, intellectual property, cyberlaw, Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, COMPUTER CONTROLLED SOFTWARE INTEGRATED INVENTIONS, claims, CAFC, blogging on
Jul 22, 2008
Prof. John F. Duffy analyses at Patently-O the probable position of the USPTO towards software patents as presented in a series of cases. Specifically, patentable subject matter must result in a physical transformation of an article that is tied to a particular machine. A general purpose computer may probably not be regarded as a particular machine, and data structures and numbers (e.g. webpage rankings) may probably neither be regarded as articles nor as being physically transformed. Well – some news for the software industry. The analysis is recommended as being not only thorough but also quite easy to read.
Posted by: Arturo Reyes in trademark, Trade Marks, Trade Mark, Reyes Fenig, patent, Mexico, Lawsuits, law, intellectual property, infringement on
Jul 19, 2008
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
A webpage at wipo presents annually selected notable inventors. I would like to share with you some inventions for daily use by these notable inventors (WO/2001/033409) COMPUTER GENERATED POETRY SYSTEM by Raymond KURZWEIL; (WO 03/103559) Hybrid Human/Electric Powered Vehicle and
(WO 02/011641) Apparatus and Method for Cleaning Teeth by
Dean KAMEN; (WO 98/049868) LIGHT ENHANCED BULLHORN and (WO 03/091099) ROTORCRAFT by Elwood Norris; and finally (WO 98/028988) EDIBLE TOY FIGURES CONSTRUCTED OF CEREAL, AND METHOD and
(WO 98/038810) DISPOSABLE WIRELESS TELEPHONE AND METHOD by Randice-Lisa ALTSCHUL. I hope you have enjoyed!
Posted by: Ophir Tal in USPTO, United States, prosecution, Patents Opposition, Patents, Patently-O, Patent search, Patent Prosecution, patent opposition, patent, oppositions, intellectual property, consultation, blogging on
Jul 08, 2008
A possibility for opposing pending patent applications in the US is presented by Dennis Crouch in his blog Patently-O under the title "poor-man's opposition proceedings ". The US law does not allow opposing a patent application (in contrary e.g. to israeli procedures which are partly based on receiving third party's oppositions), however they do commit applicants to submit to the patent office any relevant subject matter. So, the procedure comprises sending such subject matter to the applicant, thus making him obligated to disclose it to the patent office! I like this
MH Foods, owners of the trademark American Dry Fruits, has filed a lawsuit with the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, against ice-cream maker Vadilal Industries to prevent it from using the trademark for its range of ice cream.
MH Foods contends that Vadilal has not changed its trademark despite repeated warnings. Advocate of MH Foods, Avesh Kayser of Kayser & Company, said: "We had sent a notice to Vadilal and they asked for a period of six months. However, since they failed to take any corrective steps, we have filed a suit against them."
MH Foods claimed it has exclusive intellectual property rights to the name ‘American Dry Fruits' since it has been selling dry fruits, sweets and namkeens since 1932.
"Last year, Amul was forced to stop using the brand name after MH Foods legally challenged
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by India Habitat Centre here to restrain a person from using the words "Habitat Centre" submitting that it had an exclusive trade mark right over them.
India Habitat Centre, a prominent club on Lodhi Road in the Capital, had urged the Court to restrain Sunita Aeren of Ghaziabad from using the two words for her upcoming new club at Indirapuram in Ghaziabad. Ms. Aeren has named her club Indirapuram Habitat Centre.
Dismissing the plea, Justice S. N. Dhingra said: "The words denote only a centre providing services in relation with the environment and assembly of people for various activities. The two words cannot be the exclusive property of India Habitat Centre. Neither Habitat nor Centre can be allowed to become a property of any person singly or
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >> |
|
|
|
 |
Partners |
 |
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
