KASS | IP Experts

Intellectual Property

PARODY: What is funny to one, may not be funny to all!

by

By Linh Nguyen

“Parody” according to Cambridge dictionary is “writing, music, art, speech, etc. that intentionally copies the style of someone famous or copies a particular situation, making the features or qualities of the original more noticeable in a way that is humorous”. Many of us enjoy a parody because it brings humor, fun and laughter in a creative way while still reminding us of the original work. Parodies can commonly be protected under Copyright Law in the form of a derivative work in any jurisdiction having an IP protection system, either belonging to the owner of the original work or another party with the former’s permission. The most popular forms of parody we are probably familiar with are movie and music parodies, all of which are regulated under the umbrella of Copyright Law.

[Read more…]

Can An Expired Trademark Be Forgotten?

by

By Ngan Pham

Much like human life, trademarks also have different fates or destinies from birth to maturity. Some may proceed smoothly to being granted within the statutory time without any challenges from competent authorities, and some may face obstacles due to objections or refusals on various grounds. Even after grant, some may last forever while some may lapse, i.e., expire after some time.

[Read more…]

PHỞ THÌN in Hot (Noodle) Soup: One Brand Name, Two Trademark Owners?

by

By Linh Nguyen

PHỞ THÌN is an extremely familiar brand with Hanoian food lovers, especially those who love Phở – a traditional Vietnamese dish. Two well-known places where customers can enjoy the top-class PHỞ THÌN are on two different streets in Hanoi – Dinh Tien Hoang street and Lo Duc street. Despite the two restaurants having their own unique flavors, most people are not aware that they are two different brands, belonging to two distinct and unrelated owners.

[Read more…]

On The Path To The Hague Agreement

by

By Wipaphat S. Trossel

In compliance with established commitments in the ASEAN IPR Action Plan 2016-2025, Thailand is on its way to joining the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs. Prior to entering the Agreement, the Department of Intellectual Property of Thailand (DIP) had organised public hearings of the Draft Amendments to the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522 (Industrial Design in Thailand is recognised as a Design Patent under the Act), which went on until the end of October 2020. The Draft Amendments were recently approved by the Thai Parliament on 29 November 2022.

According to the Draft Amendments, the key focus areas which will bring Thai Design law to comply with the Hague Agreement are:

  1. Disclosure grace period for Design Patent: The current Act does not specify a grace period of disclosure for Design application. The Draft Amendments proposed a 6-month period, whereby disclosure made voluntarily by the designer or made unlawfully by a third party without the applicant’s consent before the filing date will not be considered valid.
  1. Protection term for Design Patent: 15 years in accordance with the Draft Amendments i.e., a five-year initial term plus two renewal terms of five years each.
  1. Scope of Protection for Design Patent: Extended to partial design and related design, which are not available under the current Act.
  1. Examination procedure of Design Patent application: The Draft Amendments introduce a system where formality and substantive examinations are conducted in parallel before the publication of design application. Once the design application is published, an opposition can be submitted within 90 days from the publication date by any interested person.

While further revision in response to comments received during the public hearings is to be expected, the new design law will ensure that applicants from countries covered by the Hague System will be able to designate Thailand in international design applications.

If you have any questions or would like to get more updates on the Thai Patent Act or Thailand’s accession to the Hague Agreement, drop us an email at kass@kass.asia!

Destination Branding: How IP Can Boost Tourism

by

By Wipaphat S. Trossel

For many countries, tourism is a catalyst for social development. At the start of 2020, the economic growth of these countries was hard-hit by travel restrictions affecting not only the tourism industry, but also all commercial activities connected to it. As a perennial tourist favourite, Thailand was naturally affected as well. Adapting to the new normal with the relaxing of travel requirements from the beginning of July 2022, the tourism industry in Thailand is now ready to be reborn.

[Read more…]

[Vietnam Update] Landscape of Industrial Property Registrations in 2021

by

By Linh Nguyen

2022 is coming to an end, with the year bringing many developments in Vietnam. As Vietnam recovers from a challenging 2021 due to the impact of COVID-19, let’s take a look at how the country’s Intellectual Property (IP) landscape was affected in 2021.

[Read more…]

Taking The Lid Off Biolife, Spuntino and Ciotolla

by

By Jamieson McKinnon

Dart Industries Inc & Anor v CMN International Sdn Bhd & Ors – Civil Suit No.: WA-22IP-16-04/2017 consolidated with WA-22IP-17-04/2017

Background & Facts:

The High Court of Malaysia case Dart Industries Inc & Anor v CMN International Sdn Bhd is four combined suits between two Plaintiffs; Dart Industries Inc. and Tupperware Brands Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., who allege that the Defendants had infringed on their registered industrial designs.

[Read more…]

What to consider when assessing trademark similarity: Daimler AG v Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd [2022] SGIPOS 1

by

By Lauren Bennardo

Knowing when to raise an opposition or if your trademark is considered similar to another mark can be a difficult task. Owners are encouraged to assess the total impression of the mark, particularly from a consumer perspective. This was demonstrated in the recent case of Daimler AG v Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd [2022] SGIPOS 1 where the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) rejected an opposition for two marks which appeared to be similar.

[Read more…]

[Vietnam] Lack of Inventive Step? Don’t Worry, Get a Utility Solution Patent Instead

by

By Linh Nguyen

Numerous resources – time, money and effort – are invested when creating an invention, in the hopes of getting a successful patent and thereafter using it as springboard for further innovation and growth. But when your patent application is rejected because the invention is found to lack the inventive step criteria upon substantive examination by the National Intellectual Property office, what happens then?

[Read more…]

KASS Website