Issue No. 8, June 2018APAA e-Newsletter
|
Registered Designs and Copyright in Australia – The Painful Overlap |
Robert Wulff, Griffith Hack (Australia) |
When dealing with producing 3D copyright works for industrial application (i.e. mass-production of a repeating design, there is a serious issue in Australia that relates to the overlap in protection provided by copyright law and registered design law. |
More
|
|
Bill of Amendment of the Japanese Copyright Act |
Yriko Sagara, Nakamura & Partners (Japan) |
This article relates to the introduction of the bill of amendments of the Copyright Act in Japan in 2018, albeit without amendments related to digitalization of education, which will come into effect within three years of the publication of this bill. The remaining amendments take effect on January 1, 2019. |
More
|
|
Not Confusingly Similar – FOX and MUDDYFOX for Bicycles |
Doug Jay Lee and Young Joo Song, Yoon & Yang (IP) LLC (Korea) |
If you are denied a registration because of its similarity with another party’s mark, but have enough evidence to reasonably prove consumers will not likely be confused if both marks were to coexist, then it is worth serious consideration to appeal your case through the courts. |
More
|
|
Proposed Amendments to the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act |
Taecksoo Kwon, Jihyun Kim, Taeuk Kang, Susan Park and Suji Lee – Bae, Kim & Lee LLC (Korea) |
|
More
|
|
The “Windsurfing Test” and Inventive Concepts – Has a Recent Decision Brought Change? |
Wendy Lee Wan Chieh, Shook Lin & Bok (Malaysia) |
The Federal Court has affirmed the application of the Windsurfing test for the purpose of determining whether an invention claimed in a patent is inventive. |
More
|
|
Burden of Proof in Proving Non-Use of a Mark – Are Market Survey Reports Still Practicable? |
Wendy Lee Wan Chieh, Shook Lin & Bok (Malaysia) |
Litigants should consider whether there are any other ways to prove that there has been no bona fide use of a mark before undertaking a survey as the hurdle to be crossed in order to satisfy the criteria is very high. |
More
|
|
The PATRON Trademark Case |
Nguyen Thi Thu Ha, Vision & Associates (Vietnam) |
The NOIP has rejected an opposition filed by the holder of the “PATRON” mark for “Alcoholic beverages, alcohol, rum, tequila, wine” in Class 33 against the mark “PATRON” for “Tobacco” in Class 34. The case is under appeal. |
More
|
|
©2018, Asian Patent Attorneys Association. All rights reserved. The content of this publication and any linked materials are for informational purposes only and does not contain any legal advice. Transmission of this content does not create, and receipt thereof does not establish, any attorney-client relationship. Legal advice of any nature should be sought from legal counsel.
|
|