The European Commission and UK negotiators reached an agreement on the entirety of the Brexit Draft Withdrawal Agreement on 14 November. Next it needs to get through UK parliament and the rest of the EU.
Not to be confused with the much delayed Unitary Patent, the European Patent system provides companies with an important structure for protecting and exploiting inventions in Europe. However, certain requirements must be met if patent holders are to make best use of the system.
When a business merges or acquires another business, one of the next questions is: what should that newly merged business be called? Opting to ‘fuse’ the two previous brand names does offer reputational benefits, but there are also a number of IP hurdles that need to be overcome.
Corporate approaches to IP management have varied considerably over the years, driven in part by changes to business structures and practices, as well as to stakeholder understanding of the role and value of intangible assets.
Choosing a new company or brand name can breathe new life into an enterprise; on the other hand, not all consumers embrace change. Trademark Attorney Claire Jones sets out points to consider when assessing whether a rebrand is right for you.
When businesses merge with or acquire other businesses, the challenge for IP professionals doesn’t stop once the associated rights have been securely transferred across. There is also the question of how to brand the newly merged business, and its products and services.
When budgets are tight, IP expenditure will naturally come under scrutiny, with patent annuity payments often one of the first areas to be identified for cuts.
Can a global brand name limit its life? It's easier said than done, writes Claire Jones.
Counterfeit activity is a threat to all modern businesses, affecting their profits, their reputation and, in some cases, the safety of their consumers.
With Halloween almost upon us, we’ve rounded up some ‘spooky’ and ‘sweet’ case law updates to get us in the mood for tomo
Alcoholic drinks and energy drinks found not to be sufficiently similar in dispute over ‘FLÜGEL’ (wings) trademark.
A recent judgement by the General Court provides a useful reminder of the tests for assessing likelihood of confusion, as well as the evidentiary requirements for establishing the distinctiveness of a disputed mark. Florence Chapin sets out the case.