Starwood Hotel & Resorts Worldwide Inc filed an opposition against the application for registration of the mark 'W' filed by W Land Holdings Inc in the Philippines for the latter's real estate business. The Supreme Court recognised that despite the physical absence of use of the W trademark in the Philippines, online bookings via websites constituted sufficient use of the mark in the country. However, the court also noted that such use must be genuine.
The federal government is moving quickly towards legalising the possession and consumption of cannabis for recreational purposes. However, Canada's cannabis industry is already 'overgrown' with both licensed and unlicensed producers, all vying for consumers' attention. Brand owners, start-ups and so-called 'ganjapreneurs' in Canada's cannabis industry face a number of unique challenges and should strategise accordingly – ideally before launching a cannabis brand in Canada.
Although the new trademark law was finalised in 2014, it has yet to come into force. Before it can be implemented, the government must finalise new trademarks regulations and the Trademarks Office's IT system must be modified to accommodate the changes to the law. Once implemented, the changes will be the most significant in 50 years – both procedurally and substantively.
The Supreme Court recently issued decisions recognising the inventiveness of two Novartis patents for a compound and a transdermal composition. The decision regarding the compound patent was noteworthy not only because this was the second time that the Supreme Court has recognised the inventiveness of a selection invention in South Korea, but also because both lower tribunals had specifically rejected the inventiveness of the selection invention compound.
The commissioner of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) recently delivered a keynote speech at the National Administration for Industry and Commerce and Market Supervision Conference, unveiling various 2017 statistics and the SAIC's new 2018 initiatives on trademark practice.
A number of district court decisions have held patent claims to be ineligible under Section 101 during motions brought at the start of litigation or on motions for summary judgment. However, two recent Federal Circuit decisions indicate that factual disputes over aspects of the two-step test for assessing patent eligibility established by the Supreme Court, including the tangibility of claims, may hinder such early or summary Section 101 determinations.
In a recent case, Red Bull AG claimed that a trademark registered by Korean company Bullsone Co, Ltd should be invalidated due to the likelihood of confusion as to the source of the designated goods. A notable point in this case was the difference in position taken by the Japan Patent Office Trial and Appeal Board and the IP High Court with regard to the relevant trademarks and the evidence to be considered when determining the well-known status of the cited mark.
An appellant filed an appeal in the High Court challenging a district judge's decision dismissing an application for the grant of a temporary injunction against the respondent's use of a trademark. The appellant had registered a similar mark subject to a disclaimer regarding exclusivity. However, the court found that such a disclaimer limits the extent of the exclusive rights that a registration may provide a rights holder and dismissed the appeal.
A recently issued decree aims to further reduce and simplify the regulations of relevant regimes in order to provide an efficient response to requests for the exercise of commerce and the development of industry. Among other things, the decree simplifies the trademark opposition procedure; implements the administrative resolution of oppositions, nullity and cancellation for non-use actions; and requires proof of use for registered trademarks.
Following a lengthy battle regarding imitators' use of the letter 'N' on their trainers, the Supreme People's Court recently accepted New Balance's application for a retrial. The court may see this case as a good opportunity to apply the new direction regarding how courts should assess the likelihood of confusion. Alternatively, it may consider that the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and the Beijing High Court erred when they ignored the prior judgments affirming the protection of trade dress.
The Hungarian Intellectual Property Office and the Metropolitan Tribunal recently dismissed an opposition of an applied-for mark on the basis that there was no likelihood of confusion. However, the appeals court disagreed, holding, among other things, that an assessment of a likelihood of confusion is more sensitive for conflicting pharmaceutical marks than for marks designating other goods. Although the court's decision is well grounded in Hungarian case law, it has been disputed for a number of reasons.
The government recently submitted to Parliament the text of a draft legislative decree to implement the EU Directive on Trade Secrets. The main changes proposed include the alignment of domestic rules on trade secrets with international standards; the prohibition of trade in goods whose design, features, function, production or marketing significantly benefit from unlawfully obtained trade secrets; and the introduction of a regulation to protect the confidentiality of trade secrets in the course of judicial proceedings.
The National Institute of Industrial Property (INAPI) recently inaugurated its technology and innovation support centre, which was backed by the World Intellectual Property Organisation. The INAPI also recently implemented an advanced electronic signature programme, strengthened security measures to safeguard information and initiated a pilot plan that will enable the institute to become a paperless organisation.
In the new generation of robots, all kinds of process rely on the use of human intelligence. Therefore, a patent portfolio for inventions relating to robots with artificial intelligence should focus on the technical features of man-made inventions and creations and consider their various possible applications in order to obtain a reasonable scope of patent protection. Patent portfolio wars will significantly affect innovation, research and development of new robotic technologies.
The Supreme People's Court recently promulgated the Circular on Creating a Favourable Legal Landscape to Facilitate Innovation and the Start-Up of Entrepreneurs by Leveraging the Adjudicatory Function of the Court, in a bid to reassure the business sector. With respect to the protection of IP rights, the court has vowed to improve the rule of evidence to ensure that it applies to IP rights litigation, promote the 'three-in-one' system and establish a judicial assessment mechanism for damages, among other things.
The Supreme Court has confirmed that domain names are property which can be forfeited to the state, providing rights holders with another measure in their fight against online infringement. The court noted that the concept of 'property' is central for the rules on forfeiture. It concluded that a person who registers a domain name is granted an exclusive right to that domain name and the right to a domain name may be subject to dispute resolution and entitlement claims.
In a recent case, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that an internet service provider (ISP) was not entitled to the safe harbour of 17 USC Section 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In so holding, the Fourth Circuit rejected the ISP's argument that the safe harbour requires that an ISP take action only against subscribers who are adjudged in court to be 'repeat infringers'.
The Beijing IP Court has ruled that an internet service provider which published rules stating that it had verified the legal status of vendors on its platform had to guarantee that the products sold on its platform were genuine. Despite taking measures after being officially informed of an infringement, the service provider remained jointly and severally liable for the infringement as, by publishing the rules, it had endorsed the vendor and lost its strictly neutral position. Therefore, the safe harbour principle did not apply.
The Zhongshan Intermediate Court has ruled that a trademark owner and his company must bear joint and several liability for the compensation of Rmb3 million after the distinctive element of their registered trademark was subtly modified in practice to appear visually similar to the trademark 3M. The case shows the courts' determination to penalise trademark infringement, particularly where a defendant is reluctant to disclose its accounts.
In January 2016 Nestlé filed a patent infringement action with a preliminary injunction motion against Fast Eurocafé, which had imported, offered and sold capsules for a beverage compatible with Nestlé's well-known Nescafé Dolce Gusto system. Last month, Barcelona Commercial Court Number 5 upheld Nestlé's patent infringement action against Fast Eurocafé, declaring that claims must be interpreted according to their descriptions.