Showing 1281 - 1290 of 1331 for "The Luzzatto Group" with applied filters
02 July 2018 by
The Thai Alcohol Control Act (the ACA) B.E. 2551, enacted in 2008 sets out the legal framework for trade restrictions on alcoholic beverages in Thailand. Along with the related implementing Ministerial Regulations, the ACA has had implications for trade mark owners’ rights.
29 June 2018 by
Managing Intellectual Property's list of highly recommended in-house IP counsel for 2018 revealed
25 June 2018 by
Bethan Hopewell of Powell Gilbert summarises the English High Court's ruling over a patent dispute concerning a popular hair product
19 June 2018 by
The Association of Intellectual Property Firms (AIPF) invites you to its Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois, on September 26 - 28
01 June 2018 by
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
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.
01 June 2018 by
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
China announced a huge government reshuffle programme. The sweeping government restructuring programme was said to be the largest reform since the end of the Mao Zedong era in the 1970s
01 June 2018 by
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.
01 June 2018 by
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