Issue No. 14, December 2019 APAA e-Newsletter When Asserting Patent Rights in Australia, Beware of Unjustified Threats Michael Cooper, Warren Wong – Cooper IP (Australia) IP rights holders must consider their positions carefully before threatening infringement in Australia. Otherwise, they risk being caught by Australia’s recently amended “unjustified threats” provisions. This article looks at these provisions and makes recommendations for navigating this aspect of IP infringement.   More   Getting Your Priorities Straight: Divisional Filing Practice and Priority Law in Australia Georgina Higinbotham – Griffith Hack (Australia) The Raising the Bar Act of 2012 requires that a claim made by a patent application for divisional status must be made on the divisional filing date, which will be within three months of the publication of acceptance of the parent. It is thus no longer possible to convert a patent application to a divisional application after the deadline for filing the divisional application is passed. A discovery that an earlier patent application anticipates later claims may not be repairable by a conversion to a divisional application.   More   Qualification as Prior Art When Cited Technology Relates to Different Industry from Patented Invention Inhan KIM – YOU ME Patent & Law Firm (Republic of Korea) Article 29(2) of the Korean Patent Act sets forth that an invention cannot be patented if an ordinary skilled person could have easily conceived it from the prior art in the technical field to which the invention belongs. The ‘technical field to which the invention belongs’ is interpreted to indicate a specific industry that uses the invention. Therefore, in principle, a document disclosing a product that belongs to a different industry from an invention does not qualify as prior art to deny the inventiveness of the invention.   More   How to Judge the Distinctiveness of Descriptive Composite Marks YoungJoo Song, Mizi Park, Yoon & Yang (IP) LLC (South Korea) I. Introduction Everyone wants to create a good trademark. A good trademark is both easy to remember and reminiscent of the designated goods and services. However, such marks usually sit on the border between descriptive and suggestive, complicating decisions about their distinctiveness and registrability. Composite marks solely consisting of descriptive words present an even greater. “Manage Newsletters”   More   Adidas Succeeds Against Lookalike Inverted Logo Yvonne Tang, Drew & Napier LLC (Singapore) The 2 Logos in Question adidas scored a victory against Taiwanese manufacturer Lutong Enterprise Corp, and successfully blocked the registration of the trade mark which resembled an inversion of the famous adidas trapezoid device . The Appeal and the Evidence In a decision by the Singapore High Court in November 2019, the decision of the . “Manage Newsletters”   More   Introduction to the Provisions Regarding a Divisional Application in the Amendment of the Taiwan Patent Act Eddie C. K. Shih – Tai E International Patent & Law Office (Taiwan) From November 1, 2019, there are now more opportunities for an applicant to file divisional applications even after the rendering of an approval decision upon the re-examination of an application for an original invention or utility model. Additionally, there is more time – up to three months – for the applicant to consider filing a divisional application even after receiving an approval decision. This amendment of the Taiwan Patent Act enhances opportunities for applicants when considering whether to file a divisional application.   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.