Switching from Remicade to Inflectra benefits patients with rheumatic diseases – News-Medical.net


News-Medical.net
Switching from Remicade to Inflectra benefits patients with rheumatic diseases
News-Medical.net
“The study presented at EULAR today provides assurance that switching to Inflectra is a viable, effective treatment alternative to maintenance with Remicade,” said Paul Audhya, M.D., Vice President, Medical Affairs, Europe, Middle East and Africa
New results from first real-world study show comparable effectiveness and PR Newswire (press release)

all 14 news articles »

Continue Reading ...
  • IP Shakti’s New AIA Shield: Evaluating Patent Validity – PR Newswire (press release)

    IP Shakti’s New AIA Shield: Evaluating Patent Validity
    PR Newswire (press release)
    PRINCETON, N.J., June 10, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — IP Shakti announces AIA Shield, their comprehensive patent validity evaluation product. According to company representatives, AIA Shield offers patent protection/IP strategy options for defending IP assets
    Amendments to House Bill Would Ban Kyle Bass’s Patent Review StrategyFINalternatives

    all 3 news articles »

    Continue Reading ...
  • Robin reliant on opposition, but can he fend off Fenty?

    Readers may have noticed an item in the news concerning a tussle between superstar Rihanna and DC Comics over a name in which they have a mutual interest.  This tussle (kindly drawn to our attention by Chris Torrero) is ongoing, and this Kat is happy to host a post from Katfriend and former guest Kat Rebecca Gulbul (currently with the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys) on this very topic. Rebecca writes:

    Oh na na, what’s her name? Rihanna faces trade mark opposition

    Rihanna, 2015

    Rihanna’s full name is Robyn Rihanna Fenty. She has previously filed trade mark applications for her surname Fenty, but now her application to register her first name (Robyn) has been opposed by DC Comics, who argue that the mark is too similar to their trade mark for the word ‘Robin’. Robin has often featured as Batman’s sidekick in the Batman comic series. DC Comics believes that use of the mark Robyn would cause confusion, that consumers may be deceived and that their trade mark will be diluted and tarnished.  The trade mark application was filed in the USA for a service mark for “providing on-line non-downloadable general feature magazines”. The record on the USPTO register shows that the application was filed on 23 June 2014 and an opposition was filed on 11 November 2014. A corresponding Community trade mark (CTM) application is also being opposed. 

    The CTM opposition has been made under Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation which deals with relative grounds of refusal. It states that a trade mark should not be registered “if because of its identity with or similarity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark.” 

    Robin, 1993

    DC Comics’ character Robin was born a long time before Rihanna, making his first appearance in 1940. The character has enjoyed fame ever since then, during which time much related merchandise has been sold, including action figures and comic books. DC Comics is worried that Rihanna’s trade mark may free-ride on its acquired reputation, or that the use of her trade mark may dilute theirs, or tarnish it. The names are pronounced in exactly the same way and their spelling differs by just one letter. If this can be shown to lead to a likelihood of confusion of relevant consumers as to the origin of goods and services, which is the purpose of trade marks, then Rihanna’s trade mark should not be granted. 

    Another Robyn, 2011

    Despite the marks’ similarity, likelihood of confusion may not be so easy to show and Rihanna’s application is likely to succeed if it can be shown that the respective marks are aimed at different publics for non-competing and non-complementary goods. The level of attention on the part of consumers is also a key factor: Batman’s Robin is a well-known personality with a fully developed character, something that will not have escaped his fans and which provides a motivation for them to buy products relating to him. Likewise, Rihanna has her own following; according to the Rihanna Daily website she is the most viewed performer on Vevo/YouTube and has more than 90 million Facebook friends. However, the fact that her first forename is actually Robyn is not so widely known.

    Somebody else who might have more to lose is the Swedish singer Robyn (above, right), who has not opposed the application yet. Rihanna wouldn’t be the first to want to trade mark her name. This application comes along a wave of celebrity awareness of the possibility of registering their names as trade marks and/or reserving domain names. Note for instance Taylor Swift’s registration of some of her song lyrics and domain names.  

    Rihanna is no stranger to asserting her intellectual property. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal, England and Wales, upheld a trial judge’s ruling in her favour in the case concerning Topshop’s sales of T-shirts bearing her image [on which see Katposts here and here]. The photographer who took the photo of the singer had licensed its use to Topshop. However, the Court ruled that this use amounted to passing off because customers who bought the T-shirt may have believed that Rihanna had endorsed the product when she had not, thus affecting her goodwill.

    More on the story herehere and here
    Reliant Robin here
    Oh na na what’s your name: Trey Songz here

    Continue Reading ...
  • July JIPLP now available in full — and here’s what’s in it

    The July 2015 issue of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP) has now been published in full online, for the benefit of the journal’s online subscribers who can access it now from the journal’s website. Subscribers to the print version will have to wait a little longer — but not too long! Non-subscribers are reminded that they can purchase short-term access to individual articles and other items via the JIPLP website.

    This month’s guest editorial, by editorial board member Neil J. Wilkof, will be published in full on this website later today.

    The full list of contents for the July 2015 issue of JIPLP looks like this:

    Guest Editorial

      • Neil Wilkof

      When history is more about patent present than patent past

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 487 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv098

    Current Intelligence

      • Darren Smyth

      PatentsPain for Pfizer: skinny Actavis lacks subjective intent to infringe, but ground-breaking relief settles ‘Lyrical’ patent dispute

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 488-490 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv070

      • Valentina Torelli

      Trade marksA strong body of proof is essential in bad faith cases

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 490-492 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv079

      • Tomasz Rychlicki

      Trade marksHow to justify decisions while rejecting evidence

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 492-493 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv081

      • Emir Crowne and
      • Adrian Werkowski

      Trade marksTrade-marks Opposition Board member erred in refusing request to amend statement of opposition

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 493-494 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv073

      • Emir Crowne and
      • Adrian Werkowski

      Trade marksBroadcasters to pay royalties for ephemeral recordings

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 494-495 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv084

      • Michele Giannino

      Trade marksThe Italian Supreme Court rules on infringement of strong trade marks

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 495-496 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv091

      • Vincent Teh

      Trade marksSt John Ambulance ‘saved’ by court

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 497-498 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv074

      • Jeremy Blum and
      • Sean Ibbetson

      Trade marksRihanna in the right place at the right time: Rihanna v Topshop passing off ruling upheld

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 498-500 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv061

      • Emir Crowne and
      • Adrian Werkowski

      CopyrightFLIP-TOP not distinctive of Philip Morris, rules Federal Court of Canada

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 500 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv072

      • Richard Kempner and
      • Jake Campbell

      CopyrightFresh Trading held to be equitable owner of Innocent Smoothies’ ‘the Dude’ copyright

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 500-502 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv066

      • Christopher Hayes

      SPCsAn innovative decision on supplementary protection certificates for combination products?

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 502-504 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv075

    Articles

      • Peter Anthony Jabaly

      I’m with the band

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 505-508 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv054

      • Paul England

      Parallel patent proceedings between the European Patent Office and UK courts

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 509-517 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv055

      • Job O. Odion and
      • Desmond O. Oriakhogba

      Copyright collective management organizations in Nigeria: the locus standi conundrum

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 518-525 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv067

      • Charles Lawson

      The breeder’s exemption under UPOV 1991, the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 526-535 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv080

      • Nick Shi Qiang Sim

      Ambush marketing in major sports events: war minus the shooting?

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 536-550 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv082

      • Timothy J. Golder and
      • Adrian Chang

      Inherent distinctiveness: new cases for the old rule

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 551-558 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv083

    From GRUR Int.

      • Michael Nieder

      National patent infringement proceedings in the era of the Unified Patent Court: thoughts on the ban on dual protection

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 559-561 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv068

      • Karina Grisse and
      • Stefan Koroch

      The British private copying exception and its compatibility with the Information Society Directive

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 562-569 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv069

    IP in Review

      • Chris Rycroft

      International copyright: a prime example

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 570-571 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv071

      • Richard Arnold

      A welcome addition to the literature on the economics of copyright

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (7): 571-572 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv077

    Continue Reading ...
  • Heraeus files patent infringement suit against Taiwan’s Giga Solar – Recharge (subscription)


    Recharge (subscription)
    Heraeus files patent infringement suit against Taiwan’s Giga Solar
    Recharge (subscription)
    German precious metals specialist Heraeus has filed a lawsuit against Giga Solar Materials in Taiwan on allegations that the Hsinchu-based company has violated one of its patents for a front-side silver paste technology used in the production of PV cells.
    Heraeus Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit against Giga Solar Materials Corp.SYS-CON Media (press release)

    all 6 news articles »

    Continue Reading ...