News > Intellectual Property
Page 7.3333333333333 of 21 pages
First
<
5.3333333333333
6.3333333333333
7.3333333333333
8.3333333333333
9.3333333333333
>
Last
 Regulations issued under the Act ______________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION The Act on Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research and Development 51 of 2008 (the IPR Act) was assented to by the President and published in Government Gazette 31745 of 22 December 2008, but was not put into effect at that time. The reason was that Regulations had to be drafted and finalised before the IPR Act could be implemented. After a prolonged consultation process, the Regulations were finalised and published in Government Gazette 33433 of 2 August 2010. The IPR Act and the Regulations were put into effect by Proclamation R.675 in Government Gazette 33433 of 2 August 2010. |
||
|
||
 In the wake of the 2010 World Cup South Africans stand proud and filled with patriotism at the success achieved. What started as a dream became a possibility and, ultimately, a reality. The spectacular event resulted in a unified, purpose-driven spirit among all South Africans and together we accomplished much more than the rest of the world expected or thought we could attain. The energy and enthusiasm infected even the least sport-loving spectators. As we know, many resources were spent on improving and developing infrastructure, roads and services for the event. This historic event furthermore generated employment, created opportunities, sparked creativity and ignited a fire of entrepreneurship across the country. However, it also incited the flare-up of a different kind of business – a scourge to our economy which is hopelessly underestimated and trivialised - the business of counterfeit goods. |
||
|
||
 The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) of the European Patent Office (EPO) has issued an important decision regarding the patentability of computer programs under the European Patent Convention (EPC). The full decision, which is about 61 pages long, can be found at: http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2010/20100512.html. The Enlarged Board of Appeal had to consider four questions referred to it by the President of the EPO in October 2008 regarding points of law which could have a significant impact on this area of law. |
||
|
||
 The Consumer Protection Act, which comes into full operation on 24 October 2010, contains important provisions relating to the use and registration of business names. In broad terms, it seeks to prevent the use of business names which may mislead consumers into thinking incorrectly that one business is endorsed by, or associated with, another. This type of confusion is often caused by the inclusion of a registered trade mark in the business name of another entity. |
||
|
||
 One of the main advantages of filing a PCT application is that the applicant receives both a Search Report citing potentially relevant prior art, and a Written Opinion on the patentability of the invention as claimed in the application. The Search Report and Written Opinion provide an applicant with a good indication on the patentability of the invention, and whether the costs of filing national phase applications in the individual countries will be justified. It is thus desirable that the examiners conducting the search and drafting the opinion have access to all relevant information to provide the applicant with accurate feedback. |
||
|
||
 The IPC provides a hierarchical system for the classification of patents and utility models, based on the areas of technology to which they pertain. It therefore serves multiple purposes in that it is an instrument for arranging patent documents in order to facilitate easier access to information therein, for enabling dissemination of information to users, for enabling investigations of the state of the art in given fields of technology, and for enabling the preparation of intellectual property statistics to allow assessment of development in various areas. |
||
|
||
 Colombia - .co It is now possible to register second-level domain names in Colombia in the .co domain name extension. Registration is as follows: |
||
|
||
 The first Internationalised Domain Name (IDN) country-code top-level domain names in the DNS root zone have been introduced by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The first four countries to use non-Latin/Roman characters are: |
||
|
||
 The Minister of Trade and Industry has given notice of his intention to prohibit the unauthorised use of words, devices, logos, pictures and drawings of the Moses Mabhida Stadium, Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium, Peter Mokaba Stadium, Mbombela Stadium, Soccer City Stadium and Cape Town Stadium. |
||
|
||
 A new study, released today, documents how intellectual property laws in South Africa impact on and influence business operations in the country. The analysis was conducted by Nthabisheng Phaswana and Dario Tanziani from the law firm Adams & Adams, and reported in their publication, The Business Impact of Intellectual Property Laws in South Africa. The results of this in-depth analysis have international implications, as many nations are struggling with their current intellectual property laws, trying to keep pace with fast moving technological advances. |
||
|
||
 Popular rap artist Jay-Z and a business partner are suing Boston Red Sox star baseball player, David Ortiz, for naming his Santo Domingo nightclub Forty-Forty. According to Jay-Z, this name is likely to cause confusion with his own 40/40 chain of nightclubs. Jay-Z is seeking over US$5 million in damages and for Ortiz to cease all use of the name Forty-Forty, including on his website. Ortiz was apparently well aware of Jay-Z’s 40/40 club and allegedly opened the infringing Forty-Forty club to benefit from the fame of the rap star’s popular nightclub. |
||
|
||
 Adams & Adams is pleased to announce that we are now able to register domain names in the .cv and .com.cv domain extensions in Cape Verde. In order to register a .cv domain name, the requested domain must match either the exact company name or a trade mark registration of the applicant. |
||
|
||
 A patent amendment application filed at the same time as an application for an interdict and restraining order On 7 December 2009, Judge Claasen, sitting as the Commissioner of Patents for the Republic of South Africa, delivered his judgment in the matter of Sanofi-Aventis and two others (“Sanofi”) vs Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited and another (“Cipla”) in the Court of the Commissioner of Patents. The matter relates to the procedural requirements for filing an application for the amendment of a patent specification during Court Proceedings, which is not the normal approach to applying for an amendment, and more particularly to an interpretation of the word “pending” in terms of the South African Patents Act. |
||
|
||
 Judgment was handed down in the Court of Commissioner of Patents for the Republic of South Africa, on 14 April 2010, in the matter between Buzbee (Pty) Ltd (“Buzbee”) vs The Registrar of Patents and Cobb International Ltd (“Cobb”). The matter relates to a revocation of South African Patent No. 2002/8482. The patent was granted to Cobb in December 2003; however, in December 2007, Buzbee sought that the patent be revoked. After service of the revocation application upon Cobb’s attorneys, the patentee had two months within which to lodge and serve a counterstatement, in terms of Patent Regulation 90(1). However, attorneys for the patentee proceeded to lodge and serve their counterstatement one day after their two month deadline. Buzbee then requested the Registrar to amend the patent register and mark the relevant file accordingly, as the patent was deemed to be revoked in terms of Regulation 90(1). |
||
|
||
 On 30 April 2010 Judge Murphy, sitting as the Commissioner of Patents for the Republic of South Africa delivered his judgment in the matter of Ausplow Pty Ltd vs. Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd and three others in the Court of the Commissioner of Patents. The matter relates to an amendment of South African Patent No. 95/0812, the invention in respect of which relates to a seeding assembly, wherein Ausplow sought the amendment of a number of the claims of the patent in light of an earlier finding by the Supreme Court of Appeal that claim 1 of the patent was invalid for lack of an inventive step (obvious). The amendment application and other relief sought were opposed by three of the respondents who claimed that the amended claims 1 and 13 remained invalid for lack of an inventive step. |
||
|
||
Page 7.3333333333333 of 21 pages
First
<
5.3333333333333
6.3333333333333
7.3333333333333
8.3333333333333
9.3333333333333
>
Last
|
The firm practises directly in several Southern African countries and through long-established associates in others.
