The year 2007 has seen a number of developments in trademark practice worldwide, both administratively, and in the courts. A few notable events are:
Canada
The Canadian Trademarks Office will no longer require disclaimers of the majority of descriptive material. A voluntary disclaimer will still be accepted.
Canada has also enacted practice changes in Opposition proceedings. Among several administrative changes, there were significant increases of the time limits for filing counterstatements, and for filing and serving both the opponent's and applicant's evidence.
China
Earlier this year, the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court ruled that a manufacturer, retailer, and shopping center where infringing goods had been sold were all liable for infringement. The case was brought by the French company La Chemise Lacoste based on its mark LACOSTE and the crocodile image. The manufacturer in China had registered a similar crocodile image, accompanied by additional Chinese characters. When the garments were actually made, however, the wording was obscured by using a thread that was identical to the color of the garment, leaving only the crocodile mark visible. As a result of that modification, the court found that the trademark registrant/manufacturer was liable for infringement, along with the retailer and the shopping center in which the retailer was located, for failure to ensure the authenticity of goods being sold. While the LACOSTE mark has been deemed "well-known," the decision was made on the basis of the similarity of the subject mark to the infringer's mark, as it was used, and not necessarily on the basis of the extra protection provided for "well-known" trademarks.
European Union
Bulgaria and Romania have joined the European Union at the beginning of the year, and existing Community rights were automatically valid in the new member states.
The community trademarks office has instituted some procedural changes meant to streamline the opposition process. Admissibility checks now involve ensuring that the opposition is based on at least one valid trademark right. Formerly, if an opponent based the opposition on several rights, if just one was found to be insufficient, a deficiency letter would issue, delaying the proceedings significantly. A decision on costs will be automatically made unless the office is advised otherwise, which also allows for the disposition of files more promptly, while still allowing the parties to reach an agreement on costs, if they choose to do so. Finally, all second requests for a suspension of proceedings will be issued for one year, rather than for two months, with the option by either party to end the suspension.
India
India sought to strengthen customs enforcement at its borders with the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007. The rules allow a right holder to record its rights with the relevant customs authorities, and enable an intellectual property right owner to request that customs officials temporarily hold suspected counterfeit goods. These new initiatives conform to the TRIPS Agreement.
Iraq
Trademark applicants that are seeking protection of rights in Iraq are no longer required to sign the boycott declaration to obtain registration. This change came into effect on July 22, 2007, and it is expected that many of the applications that have been pending for a number of years should now be processed.
Montenegro
Montenegro is now a separate jurisdiction from Serbia, for trademark registration purposes. International trademarks filed before June 3, 2006, the date of Montenegro's independence, required a request for continuation of protection to be filed though WIPO. Those registered between June 3, 2006, and December 4, 2006, require revalidation within 6 months from the date the Montenegro Trademark Office begins operations. National marks filed in Serbia, pending at the time the Montenegro office opens also require revalidation within six months. National rights that are already registered in Serbia will be automatically recognized as being valid in Montenegro, provided that they are still effective as of the inaugural date of the Montenegro Intellectual Property Office.
Singapore
Singapore has amended its filing system to accept multi-class applications.
United Kingdom
As of October 1, 2007, applications are only examined on absolute grounds. Any objections for relative grounds must be made by trademark owners during the opposition period. This new approach is similar to the examination procedure used for Community Trademarks, and should allow the examination process in the UK to become significantly faster.
Patents in 2007
The overriding theme on the US patent front is one of change. The US Supreme Court's involvement in the patent field has become even more prevalent, with two major decisions coming down that affect the practice of patent law in the US. In MedImmune v. Genentech, the US Supreme Court held that a licensee of a patent is not held to the doctrine previously know as "licensee estoppel" and could insulate itself from damages while simultaneously seeking a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity. Federal jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action requires that the party seeking a ruling of patent invalidity have a reasonable apprehension of impending litigation, something that previous holding said was lacking when there was a license, and thus was prohibited by the actual-case-or-controversy requirement of the US Constitution. The decision has implications beyond the patent field, in that any licensee may now attack the underlying rights found in a contract or other license without jeopardizing its position in respect of an agreement made with the opposing party.
In another change in direction, the Supreme Court has revised the standard of obviousness, one of the criteria by which patents are judged worthy of grant. In KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected the rigid and formalistic analysis of the issue of obviousness, rejecting the requirement added in numerous decisions by the appellate court reviewing all patent cases, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). In order to combine references, KSR held that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and by implication defendants in a patent infringement litigation, need no longer rely on a reference or specific reasoning that provides a "teaching, suggestion or incentive" to combine references that show the invention, albeit in separate documents. The Supreme Court advocates that common sense should also guide the validity determination of a patent. As a result, patents can be more easily found to be obvious or invalid, thus accelerating the swing of the pendulum back toward a regime of more restrictive granting and enforcement of patents.
In this decision, and in the USPTO actions discussed below, the federal courts and agencies are succumbing to the general criticism that it is too easy to obtain a patent, and also to hold hostage an accused infringer, when the invention perhaps is not something which was patentable. To quote the opinion, "as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of the useful arts." (Slip opinion page 24).
Another major change was a proposal by the USPTO to implement several rule changes first promulgated by the USPTO in January of 2006. These proposed rules were viewed with trepidation by the patent bar, as they would have severely restricted the number of claims and continuation applications that patentees could rely on in prosecution of their applications, among other requirements. As a result of two lawsuits, The US District Court in the Northern District of Virginia issued an injunction to the USPTO enjoining the implementation of the entire proposed rule change package just prior to its November 1, 2007 effective date. The suits are still pending, and more guidance will be forthcoming from the Court in the next few months. Any final decision will certainly be appealed by the losing side to the CAFC, and perhaps to the Supreme Court.
On the foreign patent application prose¬cution front, the European Community has entered into a treaty (the London Agreement) that will permit grant of a European Patent in only one language, with only the claims requiring translation to make it effective in a particular member state. This should substantially reduce the costs of obtaining patent protection in the European Community for EPO applications filed after the effective date of the treaty, expected to transpire sometime in spring 2008.
Vol. 53, June 2010