Manage your Intellectual Property in South-East Asia
Background:
A foreign Pharmaceutical company (“Foreign Company”) owned a Malaysian Patent covering a pharmaceutical product of alendronic acid or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt (alendronate) to inhibit bone resorption in humans. Whereas, a Malaysian company (“Malaysian company”) was granted approval by the National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau to market "Alendronate" 70 mg tablets.
Background:
Samsonite IP Holdings Sarl (“Samsonite”) granted its Chinese subsidiary a license to use the SAMSONITE marks in China. Through a co-branding agreement with Lenovo PC HK Ltd (“Lenovo”), it was mutually decided that Samsonite would supply specific models of SAMSONITE backpacks to Lenovo. These backpacks were to bear at least one of the SAMSONITE marks as well as the LENOVO mark. Lenovo would then give away the backpacks in conjunction with the sale of certain models of LENOVO laptops, exclusively within China.
Background:
The European company (“Company A”) duly registered its trade mark in relation to cosmetic products in Cambodia. Subsequently, it granted exclusive distribution rights of the cosmetics bearing its registered trade mark (the “branded cosmetics”) to a local distributor in Cambodia (“Company B”), who has filed and recorded its exclusive distribution right with the Department of Intellectual Property Rights (DIPR) of the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) according to Cambodian regulations. Recently, Company B has discovered that a third party (“Company C”) practiced parallel import of the branded cosmetics into the Cambodian market.
Background:
A famous fashion designer was planning to promote its brand in Indonesia. However, after carrying out a trade mark search, it discovered that a third party had registered that trade mark in Indonesia. As trade marks in South-East Asia follow the ‘first-to-file’ principle, the fashion designer cannot register the mark in Indonesia anymore even though it owns the mark in several other countries.
Background:
A chemical manufacturer was unsure about the provisions on potential patent invalidation of the new Patent Law of Indonesia, which sets a new potential ground for patent invalidation and came into effect in August 2016. Based on the new Patent Law, any patent might be vulnerable to invalidation if the patent holder does not produce the products or use the process within Indonesia. Given that the law is quite recent, it remains uncertain how the provision will be interpreted in court.
Background:
A trade mark owner in the Philippines found out that a local retail shop had been selling counterfeit products that infringed his registered trade mark for quite some time and it wanted to stop this illicit activity which was incurring economic damages to his company.
Background:
Two Hollywood studios, “Voltage Pictures” and “QOTD Film Investment”, are the right owners of the two movies “Father & Daughters” and “Queen of the Desert”. They have been subject to serious copyright infringement carried out by illegal downloaders in Singapore for quite some time.
Background:
A UK distributor of men's and boys' apparel and furnishings (Company A) is interested in the Thai market and would like to register a trade mark for its products to be distributed in the local market.
Background:
“Company A” in Thailand submitted a trade mark application to the Thai Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) to register the mark “TMB Make THE Difference” for banking services in Class 36. After examining the application, the DIP accepted to protect the mark, but with the phrase "Make THE Difference" disclaimed for being descriptive. The company was reluctant to disclaim their right over the phrase "Make THE Difference" as they considered it an important slogan in the company’s branding strategy.
Background:
Liwayway Marketing Corporation ("Liwayway") is the owner of a trade mark that was registered with the Thai Registrar of Trade Mark in various classes. However, its trade mark was possibly being expunged due to the request of Oishi Group Public Company Limited ("Oishi"), a Thai exporter of products such as aerated water, fruit juices, ready-to-drink green tea and carbonated drinks. Among others, the grounds put forward by Oishi was that there had been non-use of the mark for a period of at least 3 years up to 1 month before the expungement action ("Statutory Period").