2010 APAA TRADEMARK COMMITTEE
|
|
- Bryan Sims
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 2010 APAA TRADEMARK COMMITTEE Special Topic: Trademark Protection Against Third Parties Bad Faith Trademark Filing, Registration & Importation Philippines: Country Report By: Enrique Manuel & Eduardo C. Escaño A. Principles in Trademark Ownership Under Republic Act No. 166 or the Old Trademark Law which was patterned after the American Trademark Law, marks were created in two (2) ways: by use and by registration. Upon the enactment of Republic Act No or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, Section 122 provided that: The rights in a mark shall be acquired through registration made validly in accordance with the provisions of this law. (Emphasis provided) This is not to say however that where there is no registration, there is no protection. Philippine law has afforded protection to marks, which were proven to have had prior use, prior to the enactment of the IP Code. Thus, Section on Unfair Competition specifically provides that A person who has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures or deals in, his business or services from those of others, whether or not a registered mark is employed, has a property right in the goodwill of said goods, business or services so identified, which will be protected in the same manner as other property rights. While the prior aggrieved user of the mark may not sue for infringement, not having secured a trademark registration, said party is nevertheless protected by this provision of law by granting him a cause of action for Unfair Competition. This principle has been upheld in a number of cases by the Philippine Supreme Court. One such case (Converse Rubber Corp. vs. Jacinto Rubber & Plastics Co., Inc., G.R. No. L and L-30505, April 28, 1980) involved a local shoe manufacturer (Jacinto Rubber) who, having failed to secure a licensing agreement with the foreign company (Converse) manufactured and marketed identical designed rubber shoes and used his own trademark. When the Plaintiff American company sued for unfair competition, Defendant claimed prior local registration of its brand, the Supreme Court rejected the argument and held that in cases of unfair competition, no registration was required and that the Defendant s bad faith in manufacturing and marketing the identically-designed shoes was evident. B. Statutory Provisions on Acquisition of Trademark Rights In determining what is considered as bad-faith trademark filing, the provisions of the Trademark Law on what marks are registrable must be given attention. The
2 trademark law in defining registrability of marks enumerates what are NOT capable of appropriation. Pertinent provisions involving well-known marks include: Sec Registrability A mark cannot be registered if it: (d) Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with an earlier filing or priority date, in respect of: (i) (ii) (iii) The same goods or services, or Closely related goods or services, or If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion; (e) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation of a mark which is considered by the competent authority in the Philippines to be well-known internationally and in the Philippines, whether or not it is registered here, as being already the mark of a person other than the application for registration and used for identical or similar goods or services; (f) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation of a mark considered well-known in accordance with the preceding paragraph, which is registered in the Philippines with respect to goods or services which are not similar to those with respect to which registration is applied for: Provided, That use of the mark in relation to those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services, and the owner of the registered mark: Provided further, That the interests of the owner of the registered mark are likely to be damaged by such use. (Emphasis supplied) Particular focus is on provisions (e) and (f) which deals with registration of marks which may be well-known internationally. Philippine trademark law protects the registration of international well-known marks against third party registration but requires that the mark must not only be well known internationally but likewise well known in the Philippines. Criteria in determination of a well-knownness of a mark include: (1) registrations in different jurisdictions of the mark; (2) publication, advertisements; (3) Sale in various jurisdictions; (4) notoriety in the relevant sector. In cases involving fraudulent or bad faith registration of trademarks, the Trademark Law provides several remedies, such as Opposition and Cancellation proceedings, unfair competition cases, as earlier mentioned and civil case for damages. Sec Opposition. Any person who believes that he would be damaged by the registration of a mark, may upon payment of the required fee and within thirty (30)
3 days after the publication referred to in Subsection 133.2, file with the Office an opposition to the application. Sec Cancellation A petition to cancel a registration of a mark under this Act may be filed with the Bureau of Legal Affairs by any person who believes that he is or will be damaged by the registration of a mark under this Act as follows: (a) Within five (5) years from the date of the registration of the mark under this Act. (b) At any time, if the registered mark becomes the generic name for the goods or services, or a portion thereof, for which it is registered, or has been abandoned, or its registration was obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of this Act, or if the registered mark is being used by, or with the permission of, the registrant so as to misrepresent the source of the goods or services on or in connection with which the mark is used. x x x (c) At any time, if the registered owner of the mark without legitimate reason fails to use the mark within the Philippines, or to cause it to be used in the Philippines by virtue of a license during an uninterrupted period of three (3) years or longer Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the court or the administrative agency vested with jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate any action to enforce the rights to a registered mark shall likewise exercise jurisdiction to determine whether the registration of said mark may be cancelled in accordance with this Act. The filing of a suit to enforce the registered mark with the proper court or agency shall exclude any other court or agency from assuming jurisdiction over a subsequently filed petition to cancel the same mark. Sec Action for False or Fraudulent Declaration. Any person who shall procure registration in the Office of a mark by a false or fraudulent declaration or representation, whether oral or in writing, or by any false means, shall be liable in a civil action by any person injured thereby for any damages sustained in consequence thereof. (Emphasis supplied) C. Decisions Defining Trademark Rights Against Fraudulent Registrations 1. IPO Decisions Registered Well-known mark Bars Registration of an identical mark in a Different Class.
4 Parfums Guy Laroche vs. Chander Chandnani (IPC No ) Zino Davidoff S.A. vs. Chander Chandnani (IPC No ) 2. Supreme Court Decisions Shangri-La International Hotel Management Ltd. et. al. vs. Developers Group of Companies, Inc. (G.R. No March 31, 2006) McDonald s Corporation vs. MacJoy Fastfood Corporation (G.R. No , February 2, 2007) Sehwani, Incorporated and/or Benita s Frites, Inc. vs. IN-N-OUT Burger, Inc. (G.R. No , October 15, 2007) CASE 1 Is it possible to prohibit registration of a mark which is identical or similar to a third party s trademark which is not well-known in your country but is well-known in a foreign country with respect to the goods or services which are in conflict with the third party s goods or services? No. To be able to effectively bar the local registration of a mark that is identical or similar to a mark which is well-known in a foreign country, such mark which is well known in a foreign country must also be well-known internationally and in the Philippines, in respect of identical goods if the said mark is not registered here, or if it is registered here, in respect of goods or services which are not similar to those with respect to which local registration is applied for, as long use of the local mark in relation to covered goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the owner of the registered well-known mark. In this regard, the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (the IP Code ) expressly provides that a mark cannot be registered if it is identical to, or confusingly similar with a mark, which is considered to be well-known internationally and in the Philippines: Section A mark cannot be registered if it: x x x (e) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation of a mark which is considered by the competent authority of the Philippines to be well-known internationally and in the Philippines, whether or not it is registered here, as being already the mark of a person other than the applicant for registration, and used for identical or similar goods or services: Provided, That in determining whether a mark is well-known, account shall be taken of the knowledge of the relevant sector of the public, rather than of the public at large, including knowledge in the Philippines which has been obtained as a result of the promotion of the mark;
5 (f) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation of a mark considered well-known in accordance with the preceding paragraph, which is registered in the Philippines with respect to goods or services which are not similar to those with respect to which registration is applied for: Provided, That use of the mark in relation to those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services, and the owner of the registered mark: Provided further, That the interests of the owner of the registered mark are likely to be damaged by such use. 1 The foregoing provisions conform to the relevant portions of the Convention of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property, otherwise known as the Paris Convention, as well as the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 2, to which the Philippines is a signatory. We note that in its Decision No. 149 dated December 22, 2006, the IPO categorically declared that under the law, to be considered well-known, a mark must not only be well-known internationally but also in the Philippines. The Rules and Regulations on Trademarks issued by the Intellectual Property Office ( IPO ) to implement the IP Code provisions on trademarks set out the criteria for determining whether a mark is well-known internationally and in the Philippines, as follows: Rule 102. Criteria for determining whether a mark is well-known. In determining whether a mark is well-known, the following criteria or any combination thereof may be taken into account: (a) the duration, extent and geographical area of any use of the mark, in particular, the duration, extent and geographical area of any promotion of the mark, including advertising or publicity and presentation, at fairs or exhibitions, of the goods and/or services to which the mark applies; (b) the market share in the Philippines and in other countries, of the goods and/or services to which the mark applies; (c) the degree of the inherent or acquired distinction of the mark; (d) the quality-image or reputation acquired by the mark; (e) the extent to which the mark has been registered in the world; (f) the exclusivity of the registration attained by the mark in the world; (g) the extent to which the mark has been used in the world; (h) the exclusivity of use attained by the mark in the world; (i) the commercial value attributed to the mark in the world; (j) the record of successful protection of the rights in the mark; (k) the outcome of litigations dealing with the issue of whether the mark is a well-known mark; and (l) the presence of absence of identical or similar marks validly registered for or used on identical or similar goods or services and owned by persons other than the person claiming that his mark is a well-known mark. 1 Section 123 (e) and (f), Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines dated January 1, 1998 ( IP Code ) 2 Otherwise known as the TRIPS Agreement dated April 15, 1994
6 These rules are consistent the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks issued by the World Intellectual Property Organization (the WIPO ) in September CASE 2 Regarding CASE 1 above, does the Trademark Law of your country consider the applicant s bad faith in rejecting a trademark application for being similar to a mark (well- )known in a foreign country? No. While bad faith or fraud may be the basis for opposing the registration of a mark after its publication or for invalidating the registration of mark in a cancellation action, we note that generally, during the examination process, a trademark examiner does not consider the bad faith of an applicant in rejecting an application for a mark that may be similar to another mark that is well-known in a foreign country. Rather, the examiner is usually confined to a determination of confusing similarity of the applicant s mark with other marks in the registry that have earlier filing or registration dates. Sec of the IP Code sets out the various legal bases on which a trademark examiner may refuse to register a mark: A mark cannot be registered if it: (a) Consists of immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter, or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute; (b) Consists of the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof; (c) Consists of a name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the Philippines, during the life of his widow, if any, except by written consent of the widow; (d) Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with an earlier filing or priority date, in respect of: i. The same goods or services, or ii. iii. Closely related goods or services, or If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion; (e) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation of a mark which is considered by the competent authority of the Philippines to be well-known internationally and in the Philippines, whether or not it is registered here, as being already the mark of a person other than the applicant for registration, and used for identical or similar goods or services: Provided, That in determining whether a mark is wellknown, account shall be taken of the knowledge of the relevant sector of the public, rather than of the public at large, including knowledge in the Philippines which has been obtained as a result of the promotion of the mark; (f) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation of a mark considered well-known in accordance with the
7 preceding paragraph, which is registered in the Philippines with respect to goods or services which are not similar to those with respect to which registration is applied for: Provided, That use of the mark in relation to those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services, and the owner of the registered mark: Provided further, That the interests of the owner of the registered mark are likely to be damaged by such use; (g) Is likely to mislead the public, particularly as to the nature, quality, characteristics or geographical origin of the goods or services; (h) Consists exclusively of signs that are generic for the goods or services that they seek to identify; (i) Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that have become customary or usual to designate the goods or services in everyday language or in bona fide and established trade practice; (j) Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that may serve in trade to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, time or production of the goods or rendering of the services, or other characteristics of the goods or services; (k) Consists of shapes that may be necessitated by technical factors or by the nature of the goods themselves or factors that affect their intrinsic value; (l) Consists of color alone, unless defined by a given form; or (m) Is contrary to public order or morality. However, as earlier stated, the issue of bad faith may be relevant in a trademark opposition or cancellation proceeding. Under the IP Code, an interested third party who believes he/she will be damaged by the registration of the mark may oppose a trademark application or, if registration has issued, file a petition to cancel its registration. In either proceeding, said interested party may allege and prove that the application was filed or the registration was obtained fraudulently or in bad faith. 3 Thus in several decisions, the Philippine Supreme Court took note that the very close similarity of a mark to the prior mark of another person may be taken as a badge of the subsequent user s bad faith in appropriating the earlier mark and provide basis for sustaining an opposition to, or invalidating, a registered mark. In the case of Shangri-La International Hotel Management Ltd. et. al. vs. Developers Group of Companies, Inc. (G.R. No March 31, 2006), the court reiterated the doctrine laid down in a 1983 opposition-related action: When a trademark copycat adopts the word portion of another s trademark as his own, there may still be some doubt that the adoption is intentional. But if he copies not only the word but also the word s exact font and lettering style and in addition, he copies also the logo portion of the trademark, the slightest doubt vanishes. It is then replaced by the certainty that the adoption was deliberate, malicious and in bad faith. In a more recent case involving the internationally well known mark MCDONALD S (G.R. No , February 2, 2007), the High Court held that: 3 IP Code, Section 151.1(b)
8 By reason of respondent s implausible and insufficient explanation as to how and why out of the many choices of words it could have used for its trade-name and/or trademark, it chose the word MACJOY, the only logical conclusion deducible therefrom is that the respondent would want to ride high on the established reputation and goodwill of the MCDONALD s marks, which, as applied to petitioner s restaurant business and food products, is undoubtedly beyond question. Thus, the IPO was correct in rejecting and denying the respondent s application for registration of the trademark MACJOY & DEVICE. Finally, in the most recent case involving the mark IN-N-OUT (G.R. No , October 15, 2007), the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the IPO in denying the registration of the local applicant s IN N OUT trademark, declaring that fraud was employed in applying for registration of said mark and that the same may not be registered. The evidence on record shows that not only did the petitioners use the IN-N- OUT Burger trademark for the name of their restaurant, but they also used identical or confusingly similar mark for their hamburger wrappers and french-fries receptacles, thereby effectively misrepresenting the source of the goods and services. CASE 3 Is it possible for you to cancel or invalidate a registration of a trademark which is registered in your country by your foreign licensee or distributor without your consent? Yes. Under the given circumstances, an action for the cancellation of the local licensee s or distributor s unauthorized registration may be brought before the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the IPO. As stated, under Section 151.1(b) of the IP Code, a petition to cancel the registration of a mark may be filed by any person who believes that he is or will be damaged by the registration of a mark at any time, if, among other grounds, the registration of the mark was obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of the IP Code. The licensee or distributor s knowledge that the mark is owned by another person and its unauthorized appropriation thereof constitute fraudulent registration. In its decision in Appeal No (Lo vs. Wu Wefan, May 25, 2007), the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the IPO cited the decision of the Supreme Court in UNNO Commercial Enterprises, Inc. vs. General Milling Corporation where it was held that the term owner does not include the importer of the goods bearing the trademark, tradename, service mark or other mark of ownership, unless such importer is actually the owner thereof in the country from which the goods are imported. A local importer, however, may make application for the registration of a foreign trademark, tradename or service mark if he is duly authorized by the actual owner of the name or other mark of ownership.
9 CASE 4 Will the following trademark A be registered in view of the prior Trademark B with respect to the goods, T-shirts, caps? No, trademark A may not be registered because it is confusingly similar to prior trademark B. We presume that prior trademark B is covered by a local registration or prior application. As mentioned, Section (d) of the IP Code provides that a mark cannot be registered if it nearly resembles a mark with an earlier filing or priority date as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. The expanded protection of the rights granted to owners of registered marks under the IP Code has been acknowledged in Philippine jurisprudence to include the adoption of the dominant element or dominant feature test for determining whether rival marks are confusingly similar. In certain instances, the Philippine Supreme Court 4 declared that it relies upon the Dominancy Test in determining whether rival marks are confusingly similar with each other and rejected the holistic test as contrary to the elementary postulate of the law on trademarks. In one case, the court declared that the Dominancy Test is now explicitly incorporated into law in Section of the IP Code which defines infringement as the colorable imitation of a registered mark or a dominant feature thereof. The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks which might cause confusion or deception. If the rival trademark contains the main, essential or dominant features of another, there is said to be confusing similarity between the two marks. Duplication or imitation is not necessary. Applying the foregoing test, a comparison of trademark A and trademark B discloses that the most dominant or prevalent features of trademark A are the word element SHI-SA and the representation of a leaping shi-sa dog located at the upper right portion of the mark, which are substantially similar to the most dominant and prevalent features of trademark B, which are the word element PUMA (in substantially the same font style as that used for SHI-SA in trademark A) and a representation of a leaping puma (in substantially the same appearance as the representation of a shi-sa dog used in trademark A) also located at the upper right portion of the mark. Thus, we have reason to believe that the prior trademark B may serve as bar to the registration of trademark A on the basis of confusing similarity with the prior mark. In this connection, it has been repeatedly held by the Philippine Supreme Court 5 that the person who infringes a trade mark does not normally copy out but only makes colorable changes, employing enough points of similarity to confuse the public with enough points of differences to confuse the courts. Although there are points of difference between trademark A and trademark B, there are enough points of similarity between the two marks that are likely to confuse the public. CASE 5 4 McDonalds Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger Inc., et al., G.R. No , August 18, Converse Rubber Corporation v. Universal Rubber Product Inc., G.R. No July 5, 1993 and Del Monte Corporation et al. v. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No , January 25, 1990.
10 Does your country s trademark practice reward a famous or well-known mark with a larger cloak of protection than in the case of lesser known marks, in terms of determining similarity with other conflicting marks? No. There is no provision in the IP Code nor basis in jurisprudence for granting additional or special protection to internationally well known marks in terms of determining confusing similarity with rival marks. The same standards for determining the existence of confusing similarity between marks are applied whether or not one of the competing marks is a well-known mark. Thus, in determining likelihood of confusion, our courts rely on either the dominancy test and the holistic test. The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing marks that might cause confusion and deception. In contrast, the holistic test entails a consideration of the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing similarity. Nevertheless, we wish to clarify the advantage enjoyed by well-known marks as defined under our laws over lesser known marks. Unlike lesser known marks which are protected here only if they are registered or enjoy application priority, well known marks are protected by Philippine law even if they are not locally registered, but only in respect of identical or similar goods. Wellknown marks that are registered in the Philippines enjoy broader protection in the sense that the prohibition on using marks that are identical with, confusingly similar to, or constitute translations of, the well-known registered mark extends even to dissimilar goods and services. Under the IP Code, a proposed mark cannot be registered if it is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation of a mark which is considered to be well-known internationally and in the Philippines, whether or not it is registered in the Philippines, if used for identical or similar goods or services. 6 However, if the such well-known mark is registered, the prohibition extends even to goods or services which are not similar to those with respect to which the proposed mark is applied for, provided that use of the proposed mark in relation to those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the owner of the well-known registered mark, and provided further that the interests of the owner of the wellknown registered mark are likely to be damaged by such use. 7 CASE 6 Q1: In your practice, is it absolutely necessary to record trademarks before the customs office to enjoy border enforcement? No. While Bureau of Customs ( BOC ) Customs Administrative Order ( CAO ) No provides for the recordation of intellectual property rights with its Intellectual Property Unit ( IPU ), such recordation is not mandatory. The BOC conducts random examination of all imports pursuant to its mandate to regulate the entry of goods 8, and in the course of its 6 Sec. 123(e), IP Code. 7 Sec. 123(f), IP Code. 8 Under BOC Customs Administrative Order No , the Bureau reserves the right to conduct, on its own initiative, random inspection of goods/shipments under existing regulations on the issuance of alert or hold orders, in connection with the discharge of its police functions over imports and exports.
11 examinations, have identified possibly counterfeit products bearing infringing trademarks that are not recorded with its IPU. Recordation is intended to provide the BOC with sufficient description and, where available, samples of the products covered by the trademarks, primarily for the purpose of facilitating the identification of infringing merchandise being imported into the Philippines. Moreover, recordation facilitates the procedure for seizure and forfeiture proceedings before the BOC. On the basis of the recordation, the BOC on its own initiative monitors and inspects imports bearing the recorded trademarks to determine whether these are counterfeit and subject to seizure and forfeiture. Thus, owners of trademarks already recorded with the IPU need not request the BOC for individual alerts or hold orders each time they become aware of suspicious importations that require an inspection for possible infringing imports. On the other hand, owners of marks that are not registered with the IPU would need to alert the BOC or request for hold orders each time they become aware of suspicious imports. In this connection, it must be further clarified that the recordation of a mark with the BOC IPU is not a requirement for IP holders to be able to institute any enforcement action available against an importer of counterfeit or infringing goods under our laws. These actions against the importer include seizure or forfeiture proceedings before the BOC; administrative, civil or criminal proceedings that may include preliminary and permanent injunction, recovery of damages and seizure and destruction of counterfeit goods, before the IPO, the Department of Trade and Industry or the regular courts for trademark infringement under the IP Code as well as violations of the Consumer Code or other special laws relating to specific products (e.g. food, medicines, etc.). The IP Code also grants any person who believes that he or she has been or will be damaged by the entry into commerce of goods or services bearing false designation of origin or false description the right to obtain compensation for damages and injunction against a knowing perpetrator. Q2: Will the customs clearance procedure be suspended if the customs office detects counterfeit products bearing a famous mark which is registered before the trademark office but not before the customs? Yes. Preliminarily, we advise that our jurisdiction does not have a registry of famous marks and the BOC IPU relies merely on its working knowledge and the recorded marks in identifying counterfeit products. From experience, we note that in cases where the BOC is able to identify possibly counterfeit products bearing a mark that is not registered with the IPU, it withholds the release of the goods and contacts the Intellectual Property Office ( IPO ) to determine if said mark is registered here or covered by an application, and to obtain the name of the counsel or resident agent of the trademark owner. If the trademark owner has a counsel or agent, the BOC IPU contacts said counsel or agent to request confirmation that the withheld products are infringing goods. If so, the BOC will give the trademark owner sufficient time to file a complaint against the importer for the seizure and forfeiture of the infringing goods which, in the meantime, will remain impounded.
AIPPI Study Question - Bad faith trademarks
Study Question Submission date: May 9, 2017 Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General Jonathan P. OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK, Assistants to
More informationTrademarks Law. Chapter 1 General Provisions
Draft April 24, 2013 Draft Amendments are in Track Changes Trademarks Law Chapter 1 General Provisions The Basis Article 1: This law has been enacted in the light of the provisions of Article 11 of the
More informationSouth Korea. Contributing firm Kim & Chang. Authors Gene Kim Senior Partner In H Kim Foreign Legal Counsel
South Korea Contributing firm Kim & Chang Authors Gene Kim Senior Partner In H Kim Foreign Legal Counsel 313 South Korea Kim & Chang 1. Legal framework Trademarks, service marks and other marks may be
More informationDECISION. "1. The approval of Application Serial No is contrary to Section 4(d) of Republic Act No. 166, as amended.
WILFRO P. LUMINLUN, } INTER PARTES CASE NO. 3704 Opposer, } Opposition to: } Application Serial No. 70197 -versus- } Filed: November 29, 1989 } Trademark: "Bar Design (with the } Colors Blue, Red, } and
More informationNovember 21, 2012 Draft Amendments in Track Changes. Trademarks Law
November 21, 2012 Draft Amendments in Track Changes Trademarks Law Chapter 1 General Provisions The Basis Article 1: This law has been enacted in the light of the provisions of Article 11 of the Constitution
More information2012 APAA Trademark Committee Special Topics
2012 APAA Trademark Committee Special Topics "Protection of well-known marks from different perspectives" ISSUE 1: Finding of recognition of well-known marks Is there any possibility of finding a mark
More informationDECISION. a. Section of the Intellectual Property Code, which pertains to the exclusive rights of the owner of a registered trademark;
YAHOO! INC., IPC 14-2007-00091 Opposer, - versus - Opposition to: TM Application No. 4-2005-009220 (Filing Date: 16 Sept. 2005) ALASKA MILK CORPORATION, Respondent-Applicant TM: ALASKA YAMOO x-----------------------------------------------x
More informationx x Decision No DECISION
TOTAL S.A., IPC 14-2007-00074 Opposer, - versus - Opposition to: TM Application No. 4-2004-003869 (Filing Date: 29 April 2004) COMET OIL PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent-Applicant. TM: LUNAR x-----------------------------------------------x
More informationMONGOL Law of Mongolia on Trade Marks and Geographical Indications May 2, 2003 ENTRY IN FORCE: May 2, 2003
MONGOL Law of Mongolia on Trade Marks and Geographical Indications May 2, 2003 ENTRY IN FORCE: May 2, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE General Provisions Article 1. Purpose of the Law Article 2. Legislation
More informationDECISION. The grounds of the opposition are as follows:
DOW AGROSCIENCES L.L.C, } Inter Partes Case No. 14-2008-00194 Opposer, } Case Filed: 28 August 2008 } Opposition to: } -vs- } Appl n. Serial No. : 4-2007-012186 } Date Filed: 05 November 2007 } Trademark:
More informationMEDICHEM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Opposer, } } -versus- } } } SUHIT AS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., } Respondent-Applicant. } IPC No.
MEDICHEM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Opposer, -versus- SUHIT AS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Respondent-Applicant. x------------------------------------------~----~~--------x IPC No. 14-2014-00166 Opposition to: Application
More informationLAW OF MONGOLIA ON TRADE MARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
2 nd May 2003 Ulaanbaatar city LAW OF MONGOLIA ON TRADE MARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS CHAPTER ONE General Provisions Article 1. Purpose of the Law 1.1. The purpose of this law shall be to ensure the
More informationDECISION. The grounds for the present Opposition are as follows:
NBA PROPERTIES, INC., } Inter Partes Case No. 3693 Opposer, } Opposition to: } } Serial No. : 70791 -versus- } Date Filed : February 7, 1990 } Trademark : LAKERS } Goods : Men s briefs & t-shirts HERIBERTO
More informationProtection against the dilution of a trade mark. The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws:
Question Q214 National Group: The Philippines Title: Protection against the dilution of a trade mark Contributors: Aleli Angela G. Quirino John Paul M. Gaba Maria Isabel M. Llave Maria Bienvenida Angelica
More informationTrademark Law. Prof. Madison University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Trademark Law Prof. Madison University of Pittsburgh School of Law A growing glossary of trademark law terms and concepts: 1. The mark, as a general concept (vs. symbol, vs. brand) 2. The mark in a particular
More informationTRADEMARK MATTERS IN THAILAND. Trademark Act (No.3) B.E (Become into effect since July 28, 2016)
TRADEMARK MATTERS IN THAILAND LEGISLATION: Trademark Act (No.3) B.E. 2559 (Become into effect since July 28, 2016) Marks Eligible for Registration: Trademark is a distinctive sign used in distinguishing
More informationINTA s Comments on the Modernisation of the trade part of the EU - Chile Association Agreement Introduction
INTA s Comments on the Modernisation of the trade part of the EU - Chile Association Agreement (EU-Chile Free Trade Agreement), EU s Textual Proposal for an Intellectual Property Chapter April 2018 Introduction
More informationPHL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES
IP PHL OF THE PHILIPPINES GLAXO GROUP LIMITED, } IPC No. 14-2014-00444 Opposer, } Opposition to: } Appln. No. 4-2014-00007390 } Date Filed: 11 June 2014 -versus- } TM: "CORTUM" AMBICA INTERNATIONAL } TRADING
More informationPHL } } } } } } } } } } NOTICE OF DECISION. For the Director: Atty. E;:icNiAN~ ~ Director Ill Bureau of Legal Affairs
IP@ PHL BATA BRANDS S.a.r.1., Opposer, -versus- HARTZELL CALIBJO-PRAOO, Respondent-Applicant. x-------------------------------------------------------------------x IPC No. 14-2014-00018 Opposition to:
More information} } } } } } } } NOTICE OF DECISION. For the Director:
LF, LLC, Opposer, -versus- GEORGE T. ONG Respondent-Applicant. X------------------------------------------------------------------X IPC No. 14-2012-00351 Opposition to: App. Serial No. 4-2012-501016 Date
More informationPlain Packaging Questionnaire
Plain Packaging Questionnaire Introduction 1) In view of the Australian plain packaging legislation and similar legislative initiatives in a number of other jurisdictions, and following the workshop Plain
More informationWORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION GENEVA STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS, INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
E WIPO SCT/1/3 ORIGINAL: English DATE: May 14, 1998 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION GENEVA STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS, INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS First Session
More informationSUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY IPC OF CANADA, Opposer, TM Application No (Filing Date: 13 November 2003)
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY IPC 14-2005-00123 OF CANADA, Opposer, -versus - P.T. KOTAMAS JAYARAYA Respondent-Applicant Opposition to: TM Application No. 4-2003-010459 (Filing Date: 13 November 2003) TM:
More informationNOTICE OF DECISION. -versus- Atty. ~~A~"lo ~G Director Ill Bureau of Legal Affairs. CHANEL SARL, Opposer, } } } } } } } } }
CHANEL SARL, Opposer, -versus- BEE YOUNG GO, Respondent-Applicant. )( -------------------------------------------------- )( IPC No. 14-2010-00082 Opposition to: Ap.pln. Serial No. 4-2009-003319 Date Filed:
More informationPrepared by: Siew Ling Su Tay & Partners. Note: 1) Y means YES 2) N means NO 3) M means YES and NO 4) N/A means Not Applicable
MALAYSIA 2010 APAA Trademark Committee Discussion Chart Trademark Protection against third parties bad faith Trademark filing, registration and importation 1 2 3 4 5 6 Australia Bangladesh Hong Kong India
More informationDECISION. (f) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, } IPC No. 14-2005-00089 Opposer, } Opposition to: } -versus- } Serial No. 4-2001-003674 } Date Filed: 28 May 2001 PT EXELSO MULTI RASA, } Respondent-Applicant. } Trademark: FRAPPIO
More informationHUGO BOSS TRADEMARK MANAGEMENT GMBH & CO. KG., EDISON CHENG, TM: BOSSY. IPC No Opposition to: } } } Opposer,
HUGO BOSS TRADEMARK MANAGEMENT GMBH & CO. KG., Opposer, -versus- EDISON CHENG, Respondent-Applicant. X--------------------------------------------------------------X IPC No. 14-2012-00084 Opposition to:
More information8:16 PREVIOUS CHAPTER
TITLE 8 TITLE 8 Chapter 8:16 PREVIOUS CHAPTER PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION ACT Acts 19/1998, 22/2001, 14/2002. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART
More informationIC Chapter 2. Cigarette Fair Trade Act
IC 24-3-2 Chapter 2. Cigarette Fair Trade Act IC 24-3-2-1 Declaration of policy Sec. 1. It is declared to be the public policy of this state to promote the public welfare by making unlawful unfair, dishonest,
More informationPlease be informed that Decision No S^\ dated 23 December 2016
IP ERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES FELDA GLOBAL VENTURES HOLDINGS BERHAD } IPC No. 14-2013-00344 And DELIMA OIL PRODUCTS SDN, BHD, } Opposer, } Opposition to: } Appln. Serial No. 4-2013-710048 -versus-
More informationDECISION. Opposer opposes the application on the following grounds:
COMPANIA COLOMBIANA DE } INTER PARTES CASE NO. 4298 TABACO S.A., } Opposition to: Opposer, } } Application Serial No. 95560 -versus- } Filed : 29 September 1994 } Mark : PIELROJA & Device } Goods : Cigarettes
More informationPHL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES } } } } } } } } } } x x
IP PHL OF THE PHILIPPINES UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, Petitioner, -versus- THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Respondent-Registrant. x------------------------------------------------------------- -----x IPC No.
More informationOFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DECISION
Republic of the Philippines INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL S. V. MORE PHARMA CORP., Appeal No. 14-2013-0023 Respondent-Appellant, IPC No. 14-2010-00198 -versus- Opposition
More informationNOTICE OF DECISION. Please be informed that Decision No S Z dated 23 December 2016
IP PHL FFtCE OF THE PHILIPPINES L.R. IMPERIALS, INC., Opposer, IPCNo. 14-2013-00284 Opposition to: -versus- Appln. Serial No. 4-2012-00013694 Date Filed: 12 November 2012 CATHAY YSS DISTRIBUTORS CO. INC.
More informationNOTICE OF DECISION. Please be informed that Decision No ?H dated December 23, 2016 (copy
IP PHL 3FFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES UNITED HOME PRODUCTS, INC., } IPC No. 14-2014-00362 Opposer, } Opposition to: } Appln. Serial No. 4-2013-008212 } Date Filed: 12 July 2013 -versus- } TM: "VITAMIN B1+ B6
More informationRE: INTA Comments on the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
Jean-Philippe Mochon Legal Affairs Department Permanent Representation of France to the EU Place de Louvain 14 B-1000 Brussels, BELGIUM 5 November 2008 RE: INTA Comments on the WHO Framework Convention
More informationQUESTION PAPER REFERENCE FC5 MARKS AWARDED 77. a) At the EUIPO, or at a national office of an EU member state.
QUESTION PAPER REFERENCE FC5 MARKS AWARDED 77 Question 1 a) At the EUIPO, or at a national office of an EU member state. b) A request for registration. Information identifying the applicant. A representation
More informationDECISION. 3. The trademark McDOWELL S PREMIUM is unregistered as it clearly lacks distinctiveness.
THE SCOTCH WHISKY ASOCIATION, } Inter Partes Case No. 14-2005-00124 Opposer, } Opposition to: } } Appl n. Serial No. : 4-2000-007512 -versus- } Date Filed : 05 September 2000 } Trademark : MC DOWELL S
More informationPlease be informed that Decision No ipD dated October 23, 2017 (copy
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES ALPARGATAS, S.A., Opposer, -versus- IPCNo. 14-2014-00220 Opposition to: Appln. Serial No. 4-2013-004993 Date Filed: 30 April 2013 TM: "SCOTT HAWAII" SCOTT
More informationNetherlands Pays Bas Niederlande. Report Q195
Netherlands Pays Bas Niederlande Report Q195 in the name of the Dutch Group by W. A. HOYNG, A. A. HIRSCHFELD, B. J. BERGHUIS VAN WOORTMAN, J. B. C. W. VAN DIJK, M. H. L. HEMMER, J. K. VAN HEZEWIJK, W.
More informationFirst-to-File and First-to-Use elements in each recognized groups of APAA
First-to-File and First-to-Use elements in each recognized groups of APAA Background for discussion While each country has developed its own trademark systems based on either first-to-file principle or
More informationStanding Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications
E SCT/31/4 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: JANUARY 21, 2014 Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications Thirty-First Session Geneva, March 17 to 21, 2014 PROPOSAL
More informationDecision. The grounds upon which Opposer based its opposition were as follows:
CARLTON AND UNITED, IPC No. 14-2001-00012 BREWERIED, LTD., Opposition to: Opposer, Appl n. Serial No. : 85157 Date filed : March 23, 1993 -versus- Trademark : FOSTER S HOLLYWOOD BRENTFIELD INVESTMENTS,
More informationLEGAL OPINION REGARDING THE USE OF GREEN DOT MARK
www.ecopartners.bg office@ecopartners.bg LEGAL OPINION REGARDING THE USE OF GREEN DOT MARK This Opinion is prepared solely and specifically for own use, and should not be disseminated without the consent,
More informationSupported by. Yearbook 2014/2015. A global guide for practitioners. Fish & Richardson PC
Supported by Yearbook 2014/2015 A global guide for practitioners Fish & Richardson PC 24 Anti-counterfeiting 2014 A Global Guide Special focus Think globally, act globally: legal considerations for developing
More informationLAO PEOPLE S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC DECREE OF PRIME MINISTER ON TRADEMARKS No 06/PM, January 18th 1995
LAO PEOPLE S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC DECREE OF PRIME MINISTER ON TRADEMARKS No 06/PM, January 18th 1995 Table of Contents SECTION 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Article 4 Article 5 Article
More informationUK Trade Marks A Brief Guide for Clients
UK Trade Marks A Brief Guide for Clients March 2016 v Obtaining Trade Marks in the United Kingdom A summary of the procedures and costs involved in obtaining a trade mark in the UK What is a trade mark?
More informationMARl~~L. .34S- dated October 06, 2016 (copy. IPC No Opposition to : Appln. No Date Filed: 10 June 2014
BORER CHEMIE AG, -versus- Opposer, CHEMVALLEY RESOURCES, INC., Respondent-Applicant. x----------------------------------------------------------------x IPC No. 14-2014-00552 Opposition to : Appln. No.
More informationARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 691 FINAL EXAMINATION. 24-Hour Take Home. Fall 2004 Model Answer
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 691 FINAL EXAMINATION 24-Hour Take Home Fall 2004 Model Answer Instructions RELEASABLE X EXAM NO. This examination consists
More informationGray Market Goods and Recording with U.S. Customs
Gray Market Goods and Recording with U.S. Customs BESIDES SECTION 526, WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVE MEASURES FOR TRADEMARK ENFORCEMENT D. BERYL GARDNER, ESQ. MARCH 26, 2010 UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF
More informationPRC Trademark Law Implementing Regulations Issued. May 6, Draft
SIPS PRC Trademark Law Implementing Regulations Issued May 6, 2014 - Draft On April 29, 2014, the State Council issued amended Implementing Regulations to the Trademark Law (the New IRs ) as a companion
More information~ip. PHiliPPINES } } } } } } } }
~ip INTELLECTUAL PHiliPPINES PROPERTY ARVIN U. TING, Opposer, QUANTA PAPER CORPORATION, Respondent-Applicant x----------------------------------------------------x Inter Partes Case No. 14-2008-00261 Case
More informationx x Decision No DECISION
SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE S.A. IPC 14-2007-00061 Opposer, - versus - Opposition to: TM Application No. 4-2000-007717 (Filing Date: 12 September 2000) PT ARNOTTS INDONESIA, Respondent-Applicant. TM: GOLD
More informationInfringement of trademarks by goods in transit. Ethan HORWITZ
Question Q230 National Group: United States Title: Infringement of trademarks by goods in transit Contributors: Maria SCUNGIO Ethan HORWITZ Reporter within Working Committee: Maria Scungio Date: 20 June
More informationOF THE PHILIPPINES INNOVATION VENTURES LLC and INTERNATIONAL} IPC No IP HOLDINGS LLC, } Opposer, j Opposition to:
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES INNOVATION VENTURES LLC and INTERNATIONAL} IPC No. 14-2015-00317 IP HOLDINGS LLC, } Opposer, j Opposition to: } } Appln. Serial No. 4-2015-00000800 versus-
More information.-rll INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES
IP.-rlL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO METAL CORPORATION, Opposer, -versus- HUAIMENG ZHENG, Respondent- Applicant. > ~x IPCNo. 14-2014-00248 Opposition to: Appln.
More informationMAR~~ x: x: } } } } } } } } } } PFIZER PRODUCTS, INC., Opposer,
PFIZER PRODUCTS, INC., Opposer, -versus- PHARMAKON BIOTEC, INC., Respondent- Applicant. x:-------------------------------------------------------------------x: IPC No. 14-2014-00029 Opposition to: Application
More informationMARKS AND SPENCER IPC 3639 Opposer, - versus - Opposition to: TM Application No (Filing Date: 26 February 1987) ODILIO MELON DECISION
MARKS AND SPENCER IPC 3639 Opposer, - versus - Opposition to: TM Application No. 4-1987-61045 (Filing Date: 26 February 1987) ODILIO MELON Respondent-Applicant. TM: MICHAEL x-----------------------------------------------x
More informationNINTENDO COMPANY LIMITED IPC 3592 Opposer, - versus - Opposition to: TM Application No (Filing Date: 12 September 1987) CHONG KOH TENG,
NINTENDO COMPANY LIMITED IPC 3592 Opposer, - versus - Opposition to: TM Application No. 62765 (Filing Date: 12 September 1987) CHONG KOH TENG, Respondent-Applicant. TM: SUPER MARIOBROS x-----------------------------------------------x
More informationPHL } } } } } } } } } } NOTICE OF DECISION
IP PHL WESTMONT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Opposer, -versus- ATTY AMBROSIO V. PADILLA Ill, Respondent-Applicant. x--------------------------------------- ------------------x IPC No. 14-2013-00355 Opposition
More information2012 APAA Trademark Committee Special Topics
2012 APAA Trademark Committee Special Topics "Protection of well-known marks from different perspectives" ISSUE 1: Finding of recognition of well-known marks Is there any possibility of finding a mark
More informationTexas State Statutes Regulating Debt Collection / Debt Collectors FINANCE CODE: CHAPTER 392. DEBT COLLECTION
Texas State Statutes Regulating Debt Collection / Debt Collectors FINANCE CODE: CHAPTER 392. DEBT COLLECTION SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 392.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) "Consumer" means
More informationPlease be informed that Decision No l4 dated 16 June 2017 (copy
IP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES JOHNMUNRO, } IPCNo. 14-2016-00030 Opposer, } Opposition to: } Appln. Serial No. 4-2014-008579 -versus- } Date Filed: 09 July 2014 HILARIO F. CORTEZ and
More informationThis article shall be known and may be cited as the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
12-14-101. Short title This article shall be known and may be cited as the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Repealed and reenacted by Laws 1985, H.B.1191, 1, eff. July 1, 1985. 12-14-102. Scope
More informationPHL OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DECISION
IP PHL OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL PRETTY DOOR INDUSTRIAL SALES CO., Opposer-Appellant, -versus - CHENG YU CHENG, Applicant-Appellee. "-----------------------------------------" Appeal No. 14-2010-0038
More informationera. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES
IP era. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES WORLD TRADE CENTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., } IPC No. 14-2013-00404 Opposer, } Opposition to: } Appln. Serial No. 4-2012-010944 -versus- } Date Filed:
More informationfirst-to-use jurisdiction in the appropriate section of the Special Topics Chart.) [Indonesia]
[Indonesia] Background for discussion First-to-File and First-to-Use elements in each recognized groups of APAA While each country has developed its own trademark systems based on either first-to-file
More informationx x
Republic of the Philippines INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE lntollof""lt11nl DrA~A~~ ' r... il " n 11 _ ~ _ ~.,,. - UNITED LABORATORIES, INC., Opposer, -versus- EUROASIA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Respondent-Applicant.
More informationIP~ PHL~ } } } } } } } } } x x NOTICE OF DECISION. For the Director: ~a.
IP~ PHL~ L.R. IMPERIAL, INC., Opposer, -versus- ALDRTZ CORPORATION, Respondent:..Applica nt. x--------------------------- ---------------------------.-----------x IPC No. 14-2010-00181 Opposition to:.
More informationCase 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:16-cv-04333 Document 1 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 16 CITIGROUP INC. 388 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10013, v. Plaintiff, AT&T INC. 208 South Akard Street Dallas, TX 75202; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More information} } } } } } } } } NOTICE OF DECISION. For the Director:
NATRAPHARM, INC., Opposer, -versus- ZUNECA INCORPORATED, Respondent- Applicant. )(-----------------------------------------------------------------)( IPC No. 14-2010-00025 Opposition to: Appln. Serial
More informationConcurrence in Trade mark usage- Concern, not for the Honest
2014] F-35 Concurrence in Trade mark usage- Concern, not for the Honest Kanisshka Tyagi* and Isha Mehta** The article analyses the provisions relating to the concurrent use of one Trade mark by two or
More informationNorway Norvège Norwegen. Report Q191. in the name of the Norwegian Group by Toril MELANDER STENE
Norway Norvège Norwegen Report Q191 in the name of the Norwegian Group by Toril MELANDER STENE Relationship between trademarks and geographical indications Introduction Norway is an EFTA State and thus
More information1 Typology of Acts of Infringement of Trademark Rights by Country
1 Typology of Acts of Infringement of Trademark Rights by Country The purpose of the trademark system of Japan is to protect business confidence that is embodied in registered trademarks. Several revisions
More informationPHL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES
IP PHL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES LR. IMPERIALS, INC., Opposer, -versus- IPCNo. 14-2015-00495 Opposition to: Appln. Ser. No. 4-2015-001486 Date Filed: 11 February 2015 CATHAY YSS DISTRIBUTORS
More informationChina Trademark Law Revision Comments July 31, 2018
655 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10017-5646, USA t: +1-212-642-1776 f: +1-212-768-7796 inta.org esanzdeacedo@inta.org China Trademark Law Revision Comments July 31, 2018 The International Trademark
More informationFundamentals of Trademark Law in the Global Marketplace 2016
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Course Handbook Series Number G-1278 Fundamentals of Trademark Law in the Global Marketplace 2016 Co-Chairs Lynn S. Fruchter Jeffery A. Handelman Anne Hiaring Hocking To order this
More informationSEGREGATED ACCOUNTS COMPANIES ACT 2000 BERMUDA 2000 : 33 SEGREGATED ACCOUNTS COMPANIES ACT 2000
BERMUDA 2000 : 33 SEGREGATED ACCOUNTS COMPANIES ACT 2000 [Date of Assent 22 August 2000] [Operative Date 1 November 2000] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION 1 Citation 2 Interpretation
More informationCurrent Developments in European Trademark Law The European Trade Marks Reform
Current Developments in European Trademark Law The European Trade Marks Reform Roland Knaak* I. Council Conclusions of 25 May 2010 The political mandate for the European Trademarks Reform was given by
More informationCHAPTER 22 MISSISSIPPI NONPROFIT DEBT MANAGEMENT SERVICES ACT [REPEALED EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006] Section
Source: Mississippi Code/TITLE 81 BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS/CHAPTER 22 MISSISSIPPI NONPROFIT DEBT MANAGEMENT SERVICES ACT [REPEALED EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006] CHAPTER 22 MISSISSIPPI NONPROFIT DEBT
More informationOur congratulations go also to the other Officers of the Conference.
OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION (INTA) TO THE DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE FOR THE ADOPTION OF A NEW ACT OF THE LISBON AGREEMENT ON APPELLATIONS OF ORIGIN AND
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:10-cv-01979-L Document 1 Filed 09/30/10 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TRS QUALITY, INC., Plaintiff, v. YELL ADWORKS,
More informationARBITRATION ACT. May 29, 2016>
ARBITRATION ACT Wholly Amended by Act No. 6083, Dec. 31, 1999 Amended by Act No. 6465, Apr. 7, 2001 Act No. 6626, Jan. 26, 2002 Act No. 10207, Mar. 31, 2010 Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013 Act No. 14176,
More informationTrademark registrations
Trademark registrations General information Trademark legislation in the Trademark registration - (non) Registrable trademarks - Applicant - Requirements for filing - Examination for registration - Appeal
More informationNETHERLANDS - ARBITRATION ACT DECEMBER 1986 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - BOOK IV: ARBITRATION TITLE ONE - ARBITRATION IN THE NETHERLANDS
NETHERLANDS - ARBITRATION ACT DECEMBER 1986 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - BOOK IV: ARBITRATION TITLE ONE - ARBITRATION IN THE NETHERLANDS SECTION ONE - ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR Article
More informationASIAN PATENT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION PAKISTAN GROUP REPORT. Ms. Khushnum Muncherji President, APAA Recognised Group of Pakistan
ASIAN PATENT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION PAKISTAN GROUP REPORT By Ms. Khushnum Muncherji President, APAA Recognised Group of Pakistan Submitted before the 62nd APAA Council Meeting at Hanoi, Vietnam ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information} } } } } } } } } } } x x NOTICE OF DECISION
LR. IMPERIAL, INC., Opposer, -versus- THE CATHAY YSS DISTRIBUTORS COMPANY, INC., Respondent- Applicant. x---------------------------------------------------------------x OCHAVE & ESCALONA Counsel for the
More informationUnited Arab Emirates. Contributing firm Al Shaali & Co Advocates and Legal Consultants IP Division
United Arab Emirates Contributing firm Al Shaali & Co Advocates and Legal Consultants IP Division Author Rawan Sunna Legal framework In the United Arab Emirates, trademark protection is governed by Law
More informationPayday Loans Act. BE IT ENACTED by the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Prince Edward Island as follows:
Consultation Draft Payday Loans Act September 30, 2008 Payday Loans Act BE IT ENACTED by the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Prince Edward Island as follows: PART I
More informationProcedure and tips of registrating a trademark in China Wednesday, 23 March :52. Procedure:
Procedure: Generally we have two methods, if the applicant, for both a company and an individual, is applicant who has China nationality. First is appointing a China local trademark agency authorized by
More informationX. THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT
X. THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT TITLE VIII - DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES (FDCPA) Sec. 801. Short Title 802. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose 803. Definitions 804. Acquisition of
More informationEmployed Lawyers Liability Coverage Part
Employed Lawyers Liability Coverage Part In consideration of the payment of the premium and subject to all terms, conditions and limitations of this Coverage Part and the General Terms and Conditions for
More informationTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 17510.5 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read: 17510.5. (a) The financial records of a soliciting organization
More informationSenate Bill No. 81 Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy
Senate Bill No. 81 Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to financial institutions; converting state-chartered savings and loan associations to savings banks; providing for
More informationDEALER AGREEMENT WITH STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE
Page 1 of 5 DEALER AGREEMENT WITH STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE This Dealer Agreement with Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale (this Agreement ) is made and entered into on the date indicated
More informationTrademark Law Aspects of Distribution Contracts
Trademark Law Aspects of Distribution Contracts INTERNATIONAL SALES AND DISTRIBUTION Negotiating and Managing International Sales, Agency and Distributorship Contracts Seminar organised by UIA June 29,
More information} } } } } } } } } NOTICE OF DECISION. For the Director:
MERCK KgaA, Opposer, -versus- UNITED LABORATORIES, INC., Respondent- Applicant. )(-------------------------------------------------------------------)( BUCOY POBLADOR AND ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Opposer
More informationFABERGE, INCORPORATED, APPEAL NO Opposer-Appellant, INTER PARTES CASE NO Opposition to:
FABERGE, INCORPORATED, APPEAL NO. 14-03-28 Opposer-Appellant, INTER PARTES CASE NO. 1699 Opposition to: Serial No.: 27128 - versus - Date Filed: 05 March 1975 Trademark: FABERGE Used On: Underwear, knee
More informationAIG Specialty Insurance Company
AIG Specialty Insurance Company A capital stock company DIRECTORS, OFFICERS AND NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION LIABILITY COVERAGE SECTION ONE ( D&O COVERAGE SECTION ) Notice: Pursuant to Clause 1 of the General
More information