Showing 8181 - 8190 of 8225 for "Simaj Patent & Trademark Attorneys" with applied filters
Filters:
01 June 2018 by Karen Artz Ash
The US Supreme Court’s ruling in B&B Hardware, Inc v Hargis Industries, Inc provided that courts were obligated to give preclusive effect to decisions made by the US Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) if the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met
01 June 2018 by Lily Changxin Lei
In recent years, the protection system for trade mark rights has become more and more mature in China. Non-trade mark rights have also caught the attention of IP practitioners and even outsiders.
01 June 2018 by Joanne Martin
A new Code of Conduct for Trans-Tasman Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys (the code) came into effect on February 23 2018 to address two issues
01 June 2018 by Wayne Meiring
The recent Kenyan High Court decision of Fibrelink Limited v Star Television Productions Limited is important. This is because it confirms that it is possible to oppose a trade mark application in Kenya on the basis of a common law or unregistered mark.
01 June 2018 by Managing Intellectual Property
In 2008, a legislator’s wig was ripped off at the Control Yuan of Taiwan, an incident which was recorded by photography by a number of reporters at the scene.
01 June 2018 by Editha Hechanova
The IP Code of the Philippines does not expressly state that patented products must bear patent markings which serve to notify the public and competitors that products are patented. However, Section 80 of the IP Code provides that “damages cannot be recovered for acts of infringement committed before the infringer knew, or had reasonable grounds to know of the patent.
The Indian Patent Office vide order dated November 8 2017 has rejected patent application 6647/DELNP/2007 for lack of inventive step and for non-patentable subject matter under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act.
Some chemical products alter with the passing of time. When a product does not fall within the scope of claims at the time of manufacturing but falls within the scope of the claims after the passing of time after manufacturing, is it correct to conclude that such a product falls within the technical scope of a patented invention?
01 June 2018 by Henri van Kalkeren
Cialis® is a pharmaceutical product for the treatment of erectile dysfunction developed by Lilly ICOS, a joint venture of ICOS Corporation and Eli Lilly and Company.
A common dilemma for inventors and applicants before the European Patent Office is whether an invention is sufficiently mature for a patent application to be filed.
