On 20th November 2018, the National Office of Intellectual Property (“NOIP”) issued Notice No. 13006/TB-SHTT (“Notice”), revising the timeline for submission of a Power of Attorney (“POA”) document in Vietnam thereby giving practitioners more time to comply with the requirement for their various patent and design filings and procedures. Prior to the implementation of this […]
Publications
Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. v Intercontinental Exchange Holdings Inc.
In a recent proceeding initiated by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME), two trademarks “BRENT” and “BRENT INDEX” (“Subject Marks”) registered in the name of Intercontinental Exchange Holdings Inc. (ICE) were declared invalid by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore on 24th September 2018. The grounds of invalidity pleaded by CME were:- (1) The Subject […]
Philippines: Mediation Rules Revised
The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (“IPOPHL”) under the Intellectual Property Code of Philippines has revised the Rules on Mediation and published the same vide Memorandum Circular No. 08 (Series of 2018). The key revisions to the mediation rules, which took effect on 7th September 2018, are as follows: Commencement: A case filed in […]
The Proposed Draft Geographical Indications Act in Singapore
A geographical indication (“GI”) can be understood to be a sign which when applied to products corresponds with a particular geographical origin attributing certain essential and peculiar qualities or reputation to such products. In essence, a GI performs the function of being an indicator of certain characteristics or reputation or certifying adherence to traditional/ distinctive […]
Myanmar: Updates on Trade Mark Procedures
Whilst the long awaited landmark changes to IP laws in Myanmar are yet to be finalised, the Deed Registration Law 2018 has been enacted by the Union Parliament of Myanmar. The salient features under this law are enumerated herein below: (i) The language of the documents filed must be in the Myanmar Language. (ii) Documents […]
SINGAPORE: IP Office Emphasizes Understanding of Average Consumer in Assessing Similarity
In Monster Energy Company v. NBA Properties, Inc. [Sept. 5, 2018] SGIPOS 16, Monster (the opponent) unsuccessfully opposed registration of NBA’s (the applicant’s) composite mark comprising a circular device bearing the words TORONTO RAPTORS at the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS). The opponent relied on its claw device and composite device against NBA’s application. […]
Postponement Regimen on ‘Patent Working Requirements’ introduced by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights (Indonesia)
Article 20 of Law No. 13 of 2016 on patents that came into effect on August 26, 2016, requires patent holders to “work” their patents in order to support the transfer of technology, investment and/or job opportunities in Indonesia. To comply with the working requirements, patent holders need to implement their patents, for example, by […]
NON-PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING ANNUITY OBLIGATIONS IN INDONESIA WILL RESULT IN THE REGISTRY’S NON-ACCEPTANCE OF NEW PATENT FILINGS FROM THE SAME PROPRIETOR
On 16 August 2018, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) issued a Circular requiring payment of all outstanding annuities due before 26 August 2016 (the enforcement date of the new Indonesian Patents Law) in respect of abandoned patent cases. This payment is to be made within six (6) months from the date of issuance […]
Singapore Court of Appeal Clarifies Stance on Entitlement to Patent Ownership
The recent decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Cicada Cube Pte Ltd v National University Hospital (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 52 provides much needed clarity on the laws concerning entitlement to patent ownership. The Plaintiff, the National University Hospital (“NUH”), had worked with a software development company, Cicada Cube (“Cicada”), to develop […]
Singapore – Similarity of Trade Marks Between Apple and Swatch Dismissed
In Apple Inc. v Swatch AG (Swatch S.A.) (Swatch Ltd.) [2018] SGIPOS 15, Apple Inc. (the ‘Opponent’) opposed the application to register the mark ‘Tick Different’ (the ‘Application Mark’) in Classes 9 and 14 made by Swatch AG (‘the Applicant’). The Opponent contended that the mark’s registration should be refused due to similarity with its […]