Versace 83 LTD. sues Maariv newspaper for libel

February 23, 2010

Claiming Libel, Israel fashion company Versace 83 LTD. sued Maariv newspaper and a couple of journalists for relating, in a gossip column, to the celebrity singer Lior Narkis appearing in a Versace suit as wearing apparel with a fake logo instead of the real thing.

Since the Italian Fashion House Gianni Versace had obtained an injunction against Versace 83 LTD and have subsequently had their trademarks cancelled, we are not surprised that the Vice President of the Tel Aviv District Court, Judge Shoshana Almagor threw the case out, and awarded NIS 35000 (about US $10,000) to the defendants.

One has to admire the chutzpah of Versace 83 Ltd. and their lawyers, Yaakov and Chana Kalderon, and it is also worth noting that the case was filed before the marks were cancelled. Nevertheless, one is reminded of the Talmudic metaphor of ritual immersion whilst holding a dead rat…

T.A. 10887/07 Versace 83 LTD. vs. Maariv Information Publishers and Others

Leave a Comment » | Israel Court Ruling | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Israel Court Rejects Request to Dismiss Charges for Copyright Infringement Concerning Screening UEFA Cup in Pizza Parlour

February 23, 2010

The UEFA Cup is a sports competition whose organizers licence screening rights to various bodies. One of the licensees, Charlton LTD, sued Pizza Pazza (2000) LTD. and the proprietor thereof, for illicit screening of match games in 2008.

The defendants attempted to have the case dismissed, based on the fact that the plaintiff did not cite UEFA as a co-plaintiff and did not provide all the documentation to show that they had screening rights.

The judge, Ms Abigail Cohen, dismissed the request to dismiss the case, pointing out that this was an extreme measure. Instead, she gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to correct their statement of case, and announced that she would rule on costs at the end of the trial. 

The decision seems to be a correct one. The decision is a significant one since 18 months ago, Judge Michal Agmon Gonen had requested government clarification when faced with a case concerning webcasting football matches, where she was unclear as to whether the 2007 Copyright Act changed the substantive Law from the Israel Supreme Court Decision in TeleEvent, see http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/2008/07/17/moving-copyright-goalposts/

We are thus pleased that the judge in this case considers public screening of matches as copyright infringement and is not prepared to dismiss the case on a technicality. 

We wonder however, why the defendants or the judge didn’t point out that IP Law is not within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court???

T.A. 14692-09-09 Charlton LTD vs. Pizza Pazza (2000) LTD. and others

2 Comments | Copyright, Intellectual Property, Israel, Israel Copyright, Israel Court Ruling, News, Opinion | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Teva Appeals Pfizer’s Win in Detrol Patent Infringement Suit

February 21, 2010

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.and it subsidiary Ivax Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed a notice of appeal last Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to appeal its loss to Pfizer Inc. of a patent infringement suit over Detrol. Teva is appealing the federal court’s ruling of last Tuesday that they had failed to show Pfizer’s patent for the bladder control drug was invalid and not enforceable.

Leave a Comment » | infringement, News, Patents, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, Teva, US | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Israel Commissioner Limits Possibility of Filing Divisional Applications to Lifetime of the Parent Application

February 18, 2010

 Section 24a of the Israel Patent Law 1967 allows for filing a divisional application at any time up to a patent application issuing.

In the interests of clarifying the scope of protection, in Circular 81, the Commissioner of patents has ‘clarified the ambiguity of’ this Section of the Law by interpreting it to mean that divisional applications can only be filed prior to the parent application issuing.

Comment

With the proposed amendment allowing for 18 month publication, this measure is clearly required. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that this is interpretation of the law, but rather amendment thereof.

Arguably this measure requires a formal amendment to the Law by the Knesset and goes beyond the authority of the Commissioner. It should be included in the proposed amendment for 18 month publication (second reading) and it would be fun if someone challenges this Circular on procedural grounds.

1 Comment | Intellectual Property, IPO, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Related, Opinion, patent search, patentable subject matter, Patents | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

U.S. Patent Office cancels some of the claims in the Viagra patent

February 17, 2010


An appeals board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has partially rejected a patent on Pfizer Inc’s impotence drug Viagra because it works in a way similar to the Chinese herb Yin Yang Huo, otherwise known as Horny Goat Weed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimedium for details of this plant.

This February 12 decision upheld an earlier finding that an element of the Viagra patent did not represent a new invention.

Interestingly the claims were cancelled following the patentee, Pfizer, filing a patent infringement lawsuit against rival pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Co, which makes the competing drug Cialis.

The board of patent appeals ruled that a chemical ingredient of Yin Yang Huo, which is used to treat impotence and sometimes sold as an alleged aphrodisiac, is similar to the enzyme inhibitor found in Viagra.

The Pfizer patent which is not due to expire until 2019, enables Pfizer to maintain a monopoly on sildenafil (Viagra) which is apparently used to treat erectile dysfunction. Last years sales of the drug in the US exceeded $2 billion.

There are apparently a lot of horny old goats out there…

1 Comment | patentable subject matter, Patents, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, US Patent Office, USPTO | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Teva and Novartis Settle Patent Litigation regarding Famciclover

February 16, 2010

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. has announced that its subsidiary, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., has signed an agreement with Novartis to settle patent litigation involving Teva’s U.S. generic version of Novartis’ Famvir(R) (famciclovir) 125 mg, 250 mg and 500 mg tablets including all claims for patent infringement and damages. Teva launched its generic famciclovir tablets in the U.S. in September 2007.

The present agreement releases Teva for all past and future activities in connection with the U.S. marketing and sale of Teva’s generic famciclovir tablets. Under the terms of the agreement, Teva will make a one-time payment to Novartis in addition to an ongoing royalty on U.S. sales of the generic product.

Leave a Comment » | drugs, Patents, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, Teva, US | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

US Federal Court Rules that Perrigo Does Not Infringe Mucinex’ Patents

February 15, 2010

Perrigo has obtained a valuable US Federal Court ruling that its generic version of Mucinex, a drug made by Reckitt Benckiser subsidiary Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, does not infringe on Adams’ patent.

The drug, a decongestant, is used to treat various respiratory conditions including asthma and bronchial infections.

Perrigo is now waiting for final U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for the drug.

As the first company to successfully challenge the claim that patent term extension for Mucinex’s patent to 2020, Perrigo is entitiled to six months marketing exclusivity for generic version.

Leave a Comment » | Israel, News, Patents, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, US | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Judge Gronis Issues Ruling on Appeal in Balugan – Spin Master Case

February 14, 2010

In November last year, the Tel Aviv District Court ruled that where customs was dealing with an issue, they would not get involved. See: Israel district court refuses to hear parallel importing case concurrently with customs authority and awards expenses against plaintiff.

Imperiat Tsaatsuim LTD. (Toy Empire) appealed the ruling. Judge Gronis of the Supreme Court considers that there are very many issues of parallel importing under the new Copyright Law that have not yet been resolved, and finds the relationship between Sega and Spinmaster for dividing the world fascinating. Nevertheless, particularly as he found the appeal long and convoluted, he rejected the Appeal and has decided to let the decision stand.  

Appeal Number 10119/09 Imperiat TsaAttsuim vs. Diamant Tsaatsuim and others, concerning Spinmaster.

Leave a Comment » | infringement, Intellectual Property, Israel, Israel Copyright, Israel Court Ruling | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Israeli Monkey Business

February 14, 2010

 The authoress, Ms. Tamar Borenstein, created the well known (in Israel) character “Kofeeko”, a mischevous monkey who appears in children’s books.

Five months ago, “Almost Free Stores”, a supermarket chain started selling a breakfast cereal called Kofeefo, using a monkey with that name.

Ms. Borenstein claimed that the cereal was trading on her copyright and that the supermarket chain was guilty of Unjust Enrichment. The supermarket owners claimed to have purchased the character from Fotolya, a website selling images.

The main decision is pending, but Judge Yehuda Zeft, Deputy President of the Tel Aviv District Court decided that Under section 11 of the 2007 Copyright Act, the authoress had exclusive rights to do what she liked with her character and on balance, the supermarket chain would suffer little loss if they were given a month to use up supplies and has issued a temporary injunction against the supermarket chain.  One of the things that swayed him was that an employee of the supermarket chain apparently gave a receipt for Kofeeko instead of Kofeefo.

Comment

A monkey in Hebrew is Kof.

Kofeef is a pet name for a monkey rather like “doggie” as a pet name for a dig. It is a singularly generic name for a monkey character. Googling Kofeefo in Hebrew produces a wide range of pet monkeys from both the old and new world and miscellaneous marmosets, lemurs, etc.

Kelloggs used a monkey called Jose to sell Cocoa Krispies in the US when the cereal was introduced in 1958, and since 1986 when he replaced (fellow magician) Sooty, Coco the Monkey has been used for the UK branding of the cereal - Coco Pops.

Children’s books often have monkey characters. One of Noddy’s friends in Toy Town is Martha Monkey.

I am not sure that the character Kofeefo is more similar to Kofeeko than to other monkeys of the genre. Unlike the judge, I do not see the fact that the monkey is clothed as being particularly significant.  I think the names are similar, but the name Kofeefo is so similar to monkey that it is fairly generic.

I think the Right Honerable Judge Zeft is wrong in his understanding of Section 11 of the Copyright Law. The copyright in Kofeeko is infringed by copying a substantial portion of the creative work. The image here is not a substantial part of the book. The image of the monkey is not obviously identifiable with Kofeeko. The monkeys are different.

The correct grounds should be trademark infringement. Borenstein has a number of trademarks.   

We await the main trial with interest.

T.A. 8820-01-10 Borenstein Lezer  vs. A.R. Zim Direct Marketing LTD.

 

 

1 Comment | Copyright, famous marks, Israel Copyright, Israel Court Ruling, Israel IP, trademarks, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Bruce Springsteen Wants His Name Removed From List of Plaintiffs in Copyright Lawsuit

February 10, 2010

Last Thursday, rocker Bruce Springsteen demanded that a court remove his name from a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Connolly’s Pub and Restaurant in Midtown Manhattan which cashed in on cover charges from customers who came to hear a Bruce Springsteen cover band. The plaintiffs, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), demanded that the bar pay a licensing fee for playing the copyrighted songs, and reportedly named Springsteen as a claimant without his permission.

“Bruce Springsteen had no knowledge of this lawsuit, was not asked if he would participate as a named plaintiff and would not have agreed to do so if he had been asked,” the singer’s publicity firm, Shore Fire Media, said in a statement.

ASCAP charges an annual $2,700 fee to bands and venues that wish to play songs for which it owns the rights.

2 Comments | Copyright | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers