The search for spices, and the gold that one expected to find nearby (or earn through sale of the spices), in many ways drove the Age of Exploration. And spices still hold a special place in our economy and in our imagination; in fact, we believe that spices “all hold magic.” Part of that magic is that spices give “[e]ach day … a color, a smell,” as we are told by The Mistress of Spices herself. Well, color and smell (or the more delicate scent) are now adding spice to trademark law around the world as businesses explore new ways to differentiate their goods and services from those of their competitors. Getting trademark protection for color and scent may depend where you seek such protections, as the rules vary from country to country.
ILN IP Insider
On September 27, 2017, the Moscow Region Commercial Court published a significant decision in a patent dispute between Novartis AG, Swiss originator, and Nativa LLC, Russian generic producer (case No. A41-85807/2016).
Suppose that you want to federally register a trademark that identifies a source of goods or services related to your cannabis business. What if the trademark covers merchandise indirectly related to cannabis or products directly related to the use of cannabis? Should you attempt to 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 it depends on the cannabis related goods and services.
Will It Be Known As “Michelin Star Athletica”?: Why The US Supreme Court May Have Given American Chefs A Reason To Cheer
Recent years have witnessed a surge in the United States in the appreciation for fine food and those who create it. Indeed, the concept of the “celebrity chef” has taken such hold in the United States that there are entire television networks and countless magazines (on-line and in print) to cooking, recipes, chefs and the like, not to mention a wide variety of restaurants at all price points trading on the name and reputation of such chefs. Indeed, in much the same way that sports fans snap pictures of star athletes or look for Top Ten highlights, diners now post from well-known (or even not so well known) eateries on-line reviews and uploaded photographs of each course served to memorialize their memorable food encounters; would-be diners and others take it all in as they try to decide what and where to eat.
When the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) rejects a patent application, the applicant has two options for judicial review. It can either appeal directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. §141, or file a new (“de novo”) civil action against the Director of the PTO in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under §145. Unlike an appeal, a de novo proceeding entitles a rejected applicant to some procedural advantages, such as the ability to conduct discovery and to introduce new evidence, rather than relying solely on the record made before the PTO in prosecuting the patent application.
On July 11, 2017 the Civil Disputes Judicial Board of Russian Supreme Court published a long-awaited Ruling in case No. 53-KG17-12.
Under the merits of the case, in 2016 the charity fund for helping children with oncohematological and other serious diseases “Podari Jizn” (CF “Podari Jizn”) filed a lawsuit against a copycat, non-profit charity fund «Podari Jizn» (NP CF “Podari Jizn”), seeking to prohibit the same word combination in the naming.
Readers of this blog may well be familiar with the regional exhaustion rule which applies to IP rights in the EU, including (for the time being) the UK. Under this rule, IP rights can be exhausted where they are put on the market with the consent of the proprietor in one part of the EU, even if they are parallel imported to another Member State and sold there as ‘grey’ product. But there is no international exhaustion, which would allow the sale of grey goods from countries outside the European Economic Area[i], even where they have been sold on those markets with the brand owner’s consent. All of this is now fairly well established.
When one thinks about lawyers and Shakespeare, many recall the oft-quoted and misunderstood statement “the first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” ‘Henry VI,” Part II, Act IV, Scene II, Line 73. But my favorite, as a better reflection of the best of our lot, is:
Sir, I shall not be slack; in sign whereof,
Please ye we may contrive this afternoon
And quaff carouses to our mistress’ health
And do as adversaries do in law,
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends
As part of the implementation of various changes to Canadian Trademark Laws, the Federal Government of Canada released in June, 2017 the new proposed Trademark Regulations for public consultation. Canada has been modernizing its trademark law, including by moving to join three International Treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) dealing with trademarks. These include the Madrid Protocol, the Singapore Treaty and the Nice Agreement. Canada has amended the Trade-marks Act to comply with the requirements of the treaties. It is now taking other steps toward implementation of the changes. One of these steps is these new proposed Trademark Regulations.