In April 4, 2010, Apple and its associated company IP
Application Development brought a lawsuit against Proview
Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd ("Proview
Technology") before Shenzhen Intermediate
People's Court. In the lawsuit, Apple claimed:
Apple should be the legitimate trademark holder of the IPAD
mark under No. 1590557 and iPAD mark under No. 1682310; and
Proview Technology should compensate Apple for the loss of RMB
4,000,000 for conducting investigation and legal fees in connection
with the iPad case.
After examination, the court concluded that Apple should pay
more attention when it wishes to acquire trademark rights of the
said marks through transfer. The Assignment Agreement is signed
between IP Application Development and Proview Electronics Co., Ltd
("Proview Electronics") while the
registered owner of the said two marks is Proview Technology.
Proview Electronics and Proview Technology are different legal
entities and the Agreement is not binding on Proview Technology.
Also, the "agency by estoppel" doctrine does not apply to
this case. Based on the above, the court refused all claims made by
Apple and IP.
As of the writing of this article, it is not clear whether Apple
intends to appeal to the higher court
For more information about the above issue, please refer to:
Singapore Courts tend to adopt a strict approach to the exclusion of added subject matter when amending a patent or patent application. Hence, does a disclaimer, introduced into a patent claim in order to restore novelty over the prior art by excluding from its scope one or more particular examples in the prior art, constitute unallowable added subject matter under Singapore law if such a disclaimer has no basis in the application as originally filed?
There has been a significant increase in the number of start-ups originating from India. Several companies, which could be termed as "start-ups" a few years back, have grown into multi-million dollar companies, resulting in job creation.
In an order dated 19 January 2016 (Order), the Controller General of Patents and Trademarks rejected the application for Compulsory License for the patent covering AstraZeneca's diabetes management drug Saxagliptin.
This decision discussed the concept of a parody and held that each case should be considered individually on its facts.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”