2002 Designs Intellectual Property Law 
The IPKat
MARCH 12, 2025
A Kat awaiting weekly IP updates Designs Katfriend Henning Hartwig reviewed the interpretation of Articles 6 and 14 of Regulation 6/2002 (CDR). Marcel Pemsel looked into a recent decision of the German Supreme Court concerning copyright protection for two Birkenstock sandal designs. The survey closes on 1 April 2025.
IIPRD
MAY 9, 2024
Overview on Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law Indian IP law is primarily designed to encourage innovation and creativity by providing inventors with exclusive rights to their creations for a specified period of time. Competition Commission of India and Ors.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
IPilogue
JUNE 2, 2022
Meanwhile, in the UK, computer-generated works receive copyright protection, but the law designates the author as “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”, implying a necessary human element as well for copyright ownership. In Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation.,
SpicyIP
MARCH 13, 2023
Highlights of the Week Learning from India’s Disastrous Experience in Protecting Itself against Biopiracy In light of the upcoming WIPO Diplomatic Conference on Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge, Prashant Reddy brings us a post highlighting India’s sub-par experience with its own Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Microsoft v.
IPilogue
NOVEMBER 11, 2021
However, fair dealing’s designation as an “exception” inherently produces a negative implication: that copyright law is the “natural order” of things. That anyone’s use of a copyright-protected work infringes the copyright owner’s property. And, while one is at it, why not for all intellectual property laws?”. [1]
Intellectual Property Law Blog
DECEMBER 21, 2023
Regarding legislative history, the Federal Circuit noted that the AIA provided for PGRs “designed to allow parties to challenge a granted patent through a[n] expeditious and less costly alternative to litigation.” 3d 1368, 1376–77 (Fed. Introduction of Patent Reform Act, 153 Cong. 18, 2007).
IP and Legal Filings
AUGUST 11, 2023
3d 749 (1998) (Court of Appeal (First Circuit)) (The claimant unsuccessfully argued that the design for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland, Ohio – effectively the building itself – was a trade mark) as cited in Gangjee, Dev, Non-traditional Trade Marks in India , 22.1 2] See, The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame v. 12] Dyson v.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
64 
Let's personalize your content