-
Search IP Databases
- CIOPORA Copyright EPO EU EUIPO European Commission European Patent Office European Union Federal Circuit Goods and Services Industrial Designs Infringement innovation intellectual property Intellectual Property Rights International Registration invention IP Madrid Protocol Maier and Maier OHIM patent patents PCT trademark trade mark Trademarks USPTO WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization
- view all tags
IP4all Weekly Bulletin
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
IP Basis®
IP Guide®
Archive: 17 Oct 2011
Trademark Prosecution in China
What is the difference between registering atrademark through the Madrid system and registering a national Chinese trademark? China joined the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (the Agreement) on July 4, 1989. It entered into force in China on October 4, 1989. China joined the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the […]
The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program between Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
The PPH program between TIPO and USPTO launched on September 1, 2011 for a trial period of one year. Applicants of invention patents that are first filed with USPTO and later filed with TIPO claiming priority to corresponding US applications and have requested for Substantive examination but the TIPO has not issued the first examination […]
The Intellectual Property Court will not take into account any new evidence supplemented by the TIPO at the stage of appeal or administrative action if the appeal or administrative action is not arisen for a cancellation or revocation of a registered trademark or patent (a written judgment No.172 made by IP Court in 2010)
Article 33 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act prescribes that in an administrative action concerning cancellation or revocation of a registered trademark or patent, the Intellectual Property Court shall take into account any new evidence submitted on the same grounds for the cancellation or revocation prior to the end of the oral argument. The […]
“Trade dress” of the mobile phone is not distinctive enough to be registered as a trademark (a written judgment No.221 made by IP Court in 2010)
The Plaintiff filed the trademark at issue “iPhone trade dress Icon Screen (color)” on July 23, 1999, designating on use of products with multifunctional portable digital electronic equipments in I.C. 09, namely the appearance and APPs shown on the screen of iPhone mobile phone. The judge of IP Court is of the opinion that the […]
A case demonstrates how a trademark is not likely to mislead the public with respect to the place of origin of the designated goods (a written judgment No.1324 made by the Supreme Court in 2010)
In this case, the appellant is an internationally famous manufacturer and distributor of footwear and clothing. Since the appellant’s establishment in 1966, they have been using the trademark at issue as identification to every product they manufactured. Besides, early in 1987, the appellant has obtained registrations of the trademark at issue in the U.S., Canada, […]
Exercising Ingenuity: A New Exhibit at the National Inventors Hall of Fame
Highlighting Historic Advances, Current Trends, and Future Technologies for a Healthier Body and Mind
Highlighting Historic Advances, Current Trends, and Future Technologies for a Healthier Body and Mind