Select Country

Select a country to view information on local trademark law


Countries
A-E  F-J  K-O  P-T  U-Z

Multinational Agreements
AIPO/OAPI  ARIPO 
EUIPO  WIPO
SEARCH
TRADEMARKS
FOR FREE
+
+
TMZOOM

Get Listed

Promote your expertise to IP professionals worldwide.
read more

Show Articles

Subscribe to Free Newsletter

To keep updated on the latest amendments to international trademark laws click here

Articles

Print this page
Nov 15, 2018
Cynthia Rowden, Scott MacKendrick and Tamara Céline Winegust, Bereskin & Parr LLP, Canada
First published at www.bereskinparr.com


Bill C-86 – Canadian Government proposes more changes t...


Cynthia Rowden, Scott MacKendrick and Tamara Céline Winegust, Bereskin & Parr LLP, Canada, First published at www.bereskinparr.comOn October 29th, Canada’s federal government tabled an omnibus budget implementation bill that includes many provisions relating to intellectual property, including several that will impact trademark rights in Canada. Bill C-86, entitled The Budget Implementation Act 2018, No.2, is more than 800 pages long. It amends dozens of existing Federal laws, creates new government departments, and includes new statutes in their entirety. For example, a new Act creating a “College” for the licensing and regulation of patent and trademark agents is embedded within the Bill.

The Bill contains many provisions that address long-standing complaints about trademark practice in Canada, including the protection of official marks, and adds clarification and certainty regarding changes proposed by earlier legislation amending the Trademarks Act. It is the second omnibus budget bill to have a substantial impact on the Trademarks Act and the trademarks landscape in Canada. The first, Bill C-31, entitled Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No.1, was introduced
 read more

Nov 14, 2018
Yuriy Karlash, PETOŠEVIĆ Ukraine, Ukraine
First published at www.petosevic.com


Ukraine Drafts Amendments to Patent, Utility Model, Des...


Yuriy Karlash, PETOŠEVIĆ Ukraine, Ukraine, First published at www.petosevic.comAfter a previous draft law did not get support in the Ukrainian Parliament, in September 2018 the Ukrainian Ministry of Economic Development and Trade released a new draft law for public review – the Law amending certain legislative acts aiming to improve the protection and enforcement of rights relating to patents, utility models, designs and trademarks. Besides introducing an electronic filing system for patents, utility models, trademarks and designs, one of the main goals of the draft law is to bring Ukrainian IP legislation in line with the  read more

Okt 30, 2018
Åsa Krook, Borenius Attorneys Ltd, Finland
First published at www.borenius.com


Government Bill for a New Finnish Trademarks Act


Åsa Krook, Borenius Attorneys Ltd, Finland, First published at www.borenius.comThe Finnish Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment appointed a working group two years ago with the intention of completely revising the Finnish Trademarks Act. The working group submitted its report to the Ministry on 19 March 2018. Now, on 18 October 2018, a Government bill was finally submitted to the Parliament. The new Trademark Act is intended to enter into force 1 January 2019. The Government bill proposes to implement the revised EU Trademark Directive, to enforce the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks and to bring the  read more

Okt 30, 2018
Fabrice Mattei, Rouse, Thailand
First published at www.rouse.com


Update on IP Laws in Myanmar


Fabrice Mattei, Rouse, Thailand, First published at www.rouse.comOn February 15, 2018, the Amyothar Hluttaw (“Upper House”) of the Parliament of Myanmar adopted the Trademark and Geographical Indication Bill, Industrial Design Bill, Patent Bill and Copyright Bill. This article reviews the latest progress made since last February. Copyright: almost there … The Upper House has submitted the Copyright Bill to the Pyithu Hluttaw (“Lower House”) for  read more

Okt 29, 2018
Simge Şahin, NSN Law Firm, Turkey
Doruk Altın, NSN Law Firm, Turkey
First published on Lexology


How can the applicants of International Registration ap...


Simge Şahin, NSN Law Firm, Turkey, Doruk Altın, NSN Law Firm, Turkey, First published on LexologyIntellectual Property Law allows the applicants to request the proof of use of the opponent’s trademark(s) in the event that the opposition is filed on the basis of “likelihood of confusion” providing that the opponent’s trademark(s) is registered more than 5 years at the time of the application or priority date of the conflicting application. Upon the request of the applicant, Turkish Patent and Trademark Office requires the submission of use evidences or justifiable reasons for non-use. If the use cannot be proven by the opponent, the opposition is rejected. If the use is proven only for a part of the goods and services, the opposition is reviewed for the same/similar goods and services to used ones.
It should be noted that, the proof of use request should be submitted in a very strict and non-extendable deadline of 1 month as of the notification of the opposition to the applicant. However, the Office does not notify the applicants of IR applications filed through WIPO with the designation of Turkey with third party oppositions since Madrid Protocol does not contain such notification
 read more

Okt 26, 2018
José Garaycochea, OMC Abogados & Consultores, Peru

Modifications to the Peruvian Law of Trademarks, Legisl...


José Garaycochea, OMC Abogados & Consultores, PeruOn September 07th, 2018, the Legislative Decree No. 1397 modified the Legislative Decree No. 1075, approving various provisions regarding food products; industrial design; precautionary measures; patents; procedural variations among others, modifying the Legislative Decree No. 1075, which approve additional provisions to Decision 486 of the Commission of the Andean Community. Among the novelties, we can mention the inclusion of geographical indications and not guaranteed traditional specialties as constituent elements of the  read more

Okt 11, 2018
Meghan Dillon, Bereskin & Parr LLP, Canada
First published at www.bereskinparr.com


Is it "common sense" that "hotel services" requires a b...


Meghan Dillon, Bereskin & Parr LLP, Canada, First published at www.bereskinparr.comThere is a new ray of hope for trademark owners with registrations covering hotel services, but without a “bricks and mortar” hotel in Canada. The prevailing trend over the past several years has been that trademarks covering “hotel services” could not be maintained in Canada in response to summary non-use cancellation proceedings, unless there was a bricks and mortar hotel in Canada. However, the September 7, 2018 decision of the Federal Court in Hilton Worldwide Holding LLP v Miller Thomson, 2018 FC 895 (“Hilton”) has not followed that  read more