As of May 4, 2017, oral hearings in trademark review cases are available at the discretion of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (“TRAB”), pursuant to measures issued by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China.
The hearings are supplementary to the usual written submissions. More
Doosan Corporation and Doosan Infracore Co, Ltd. v. Beijing Jia He Xing Chan Lubricant Oil Co, Ltd., Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China (March 30, 2016).
The Chinese government has in recent years updated its intellectual property laws in an effort to target bad faith trademark filings. More
The Cayman Islands Trademarks Law, 2016, Design Rights Registration Law, 2016, and Patents and Trademarks (Amendment) Law, 2016 were implemented on August 1, 2017. Our detailed discussion of the salient features of the new trademark and design laws can be viewed here [December 2016] and here [September 2016].More
Google, Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. (2017 SCC 34).
In what is being hailed as a landmark decision, the Canadian Supreme Court has affirmed a holding granting a global injunction against Google, even though it was a non-party to the underlying infringement action,More
Significant recent changes to the local design laws in the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, are discussed below. Each of these may help design owners expand the range of protectable designs and of available design protections.
South Korea—Broadened Scope of Designs Eligible for Registration
The Korean Intellectual Property Office recently amended its examination guidelines for registered designs,More
Dong-Hun Lee V. Tae-Sun Park, Intellectual Property Trial And Appeal Board (Case No. 2016 HEO 5439, March 15, 2017).
In June 2015, Tae-Sun Park, a Korean individual, filed a non-use cancellation action before the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (“IPTAB”) against a registration for FILLTOX &More
By Katherine Lyon Dayton
Obligation of the Respondent to Recall Infringing Products – “Rescue Tropfen,” Case I ZB 34/15, Federal Court of Justice, September 29, 2016 (published January 10, 2017)
In a landmark decision, the Federal Court of Justice,More
By Ashford Tucker
Länsförsäkringar AB v Matek A/S, C-654/15, EU:C:2016:998, December 21, 2016
The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) recently held that the actual use of a trademark does not affect the extent to which an owner of an EUTM registration can enforce its rights within the first five years following registration. More