Suppose that you want to register a trademark that identifies a source of goods or services for your business. What if the trademark describes a geographical area such as eastern? Should you register your trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? Can you obtain a registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? The answer is YES! if the mark is not primarily geographically descriptive.
ILN IP Insider
On 24 April 2018 the Intellectual Property Court published its Decision in case A41 85807/2016 between Swiss-based Novartis AG and local generic Nativa LLC.
The Court of Appeal for England and Wales was asked to consider a case where 2 companies were using the same name in different territories, both legitimately, but one decided to exploit traffic mistakenly hitting its website by using targeted ads
Recreational cannabis became legal in Canada under the Canadian Cannabis Act on October 17, 2018 and sales have begun. Prior thereto, only medical marijuana was available in Canada.
The United States Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential opinion addressing trade dress secondary meaning. The decision establishes a six-factor test to determine whether trade-dress acquired secondary meaning and clarifies a variety of other, related matters.
Some Important Recent Developments Make Korea Friendlier to Foreign Companies Utilizing the Korean Patent System
Korean Court Makes Efforts to Create a More Patent-Friendly Environment.
Although Korea has been very active in the development of intellectual property, Korea has a reputation for being relatively unfriendly to foreigners utilizing the Korean patent system. Korean courts have been trying to rectify this situation by changing the environment for patent protection and patent litigation. Specifically, they have implemented an improved discovery process and they have established international panels that will provide more foreigner-friendly patent litigation procedures.
“Liquor Before Beer, You’re In The Clear… Beer Before Wine, You’ll Be Fine,” and So On: “Confusing” Advice For The Reveling Tippler & Registering Trademarks
The relationship of wine, beer, and spirits has often proved complicated and confusing for the tippler, regardless of country. There are old saws that many repeat, and report on, that say things like “Beer Before Liquor, Never Sicker; Liquor Before Beer, You’re In The Clear” and “Wine Before Beer Leaves You Queer, But Beer Before Wine Leaves You Fine.” One also hears such advice as one travels, with sayings like “Bier auf Wein, lass das sein; Wein auf Bier, das rat’ ich dir” in Germany (which you can hear here and which I am told essentially means “Beer after wine is to be avoided; wine after beer is advised”), and “sörre bor, jó gyomor, borra sör, meggyötör” in Hungary (which you can also hear here and which has been roughly translated for me as “beer then wine leaves a good stomach; wine then beer leaves it [i.e. the stomach] tormented”), as others are quick to mention. And, of course, there are many, many other bits of drinking doggerel that are a bit difficult to remember and keep straight.
Suppose that you want to file a design patent application for an article that is three-dimensional. What views of the article will you need for the design patent application that will be sufficient to support your claim? The answer is a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the design.
In a recent precedential decision, a split Federal Circuit (Judges Dyk and Taranto in the majority, Judge Newman, dissenting) issued a lengthy, 53-page decision, regarding the obviousness doctrine. Judge Taranto, writing for the majority, engaged in a fact-intensive analysis to determine that a ‘blocking patent’ mooted evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness and found the patents-in-suit invalid on obviousness grounds.