INFLUENTIAL COURT CASES
Magidoff LLP, says: “Te Supreme Court [held] that since the 18th Century, US patent law has given rights in an invention to the inventor, not to another party where the inventions have been funded in part with federal monies.”
Masterpiece Inc v Alavida Lifestyles Inc
Masterpiece and Alavida construct retirement homes in separate parts of Canada. Masterpiece, operating in Alberta, used its trade name and other unregistered trademarks before Alavida, operating in Ontario, applied to register ‘Masterpiece Living’ in 2005.
Te Alberta company applied to register ‘Masterpiece’ and ‘Masterpiece Living’ as trademarks in 2006, but these were rejected on the basis of Alavida’s prior application.
Aſter both lower courts dismissed Masterpiece’s case, the Supreme Court of Canada held in May that a Canadian trademark is invalid if a confusingly similar right has been used in a different part of the country.
Mark Evans, partner at Smart & Biggar/ Fetherstonhaugh, said: “As anticipated, the Supreme Court's decision emphasises that
ADVERTISEMENT
“ON APRIL 12 THE CJEU RULED THAT AN INJUNCTION THAT IS ISSUED TO PREVENT FURTHER TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT IS ENFORCEABLE THROUGHOUT THE EU”
Canada's trademark system is national in scope and confirms that trade-mark rights are derived from use and not mere registration.”
The National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) and Lundbeck case
Te vice president of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), Minister Felix Fischer, suspended a first instance decision in August 2011 that held that the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) could not grant registrations for generic medicines based on Lundbeck’s anti- depressant, Lexapro.
Te first instance said that ANVISA should not grant approval to non-authorised third parties, which had used Lundbeck’s test results and data from its own application for the government approval of Lexapro, due to data exclusivity laws.
Minister Fischer suspended the decision and has determined that enforcement of the decision should be kept under abeyance because the effects the first instance’s decision would have caused harm to public policy, put Brazil’s generic drug market at risk and damaged the economy. n
JMB, FACTOR & CO.: AN ESSENTIAL PART OF YOUR ISRAEL PATENTING STRATEGY
JMB, Factor & Co.
P.O.Box 45087, Jerusalem, Israel 91450
www.israel-patents.co.il |
blog.ipfactor.co.il |
info@israel-patents.co.il
www.worldipreview.com World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2011 29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100