According to a new law in Romania, all of the Romanian trademark applications will now be published at the online databased of the Romanian Trademark and Patent Office.

Interested parties will be able to file oppositions within two months from publications.

Israel was voted today as a new member of the OECD.

One of the main issues noted as an advantage of Israel was it’s high technology industry, and particularly the number of patents produced in it.

Experts estimate that billions of dollars in foreign investments will flow into Israel as a result. It will be interesting to see whether more patents will be filed by international companies.

In an important decision, the deputy commissioner of patents recently ruled that late national stage entry of a patent application will not be approved without a reason for the delay.

The deputy commissioner ruled that since the standard for allowing a late application enter the national stage is “due care”, this standard must be met. “Due care” includes, as a very first and basic step, finding out what the deadline is.

However, the interesting part of the decision is not the (expected) rejection of the petition, but rather the examples that the deputy commissioner brought to cases when such a petition will be allowed.

One such a case is when the applicant simply confused Israel (IL) with Iceland (IS). In such a case, the applicant did try to find out the date, but made an understandable mistake and hence, a petition for late entry of the national stage will be allowed.

Another case is a case when an applicant mistakenly thought that Sunday is a day off in Israel, like in most of the world, and filed the application on the Monday thereafter.

In a highly surprising decision, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the anonymity of people who are posting “talk backs” to articles on the internet should be protected.

In the absense of any legislation defining when will a court be allowed to order an ISP to provide the details of a person using a specific computer, the court will not create a rule by itself, an will not provide such an order.

The Internet, so rules the Supreme Court, is an important democratic instrument which prevents governmental intervention in the freedom of speech.  Anonymity s one of the fundmental factors of what makes the Internet what it is. It is also an important part of the freedom of speech by itself.

Various courts in Israel gave different decisions. Some ruled that such an order should be given when there is a risk that a criminal offence was performed. Other sufficed for a risk that a tort was committed. None went as far as the Supreme court – and ruled that no order should be given.

My personal opinion is that there is no doubt that at some point, the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, will have to address the issue and define the boundaries. This ruling will, therefore, not survive. This was also stated very clear by the judges themselves. However, the very recognition of the importance of freedom of speech, and the court reluctance to step in and limit it without an explicit authorisation by the legislator is a very, very, good sign that our “new” Supreme Court now understand that there is a limit to what it can do.

In the meantime, we will probably have the most liberal law in this respect everywhere in the world. This is also a good thing.

Zeev Fisher, on Request for Appeal 4447/07 Rami Mor V. Barak E.T.C.

Rule 19.3 – Rules for Allocation of Domain Names under the il Top Level Domain

Panel: Adv. Jonathan Agmon, Prof. Danny Dolev, Dr. Victor Bouganim

An appeal for reconsideration of allocation of the domain name “toysrus.co.il”

The Appeal was filed by Toys “R” Us, Inc. (“the Petitioner“), a corporation located in New Jersey, U.S.A. for reconsideration of the allocation of the domain name “toysrus.co.il” (“the Domain Name“) to Mr. Nir Gabriely (“the Domain Name Holder“)

Procedure:

The Appeal was filed with the Israeli Internet Society (ISOC-IL) in accordance with Rule 19.3 the ISOC-IL Rules for Allocation of Domain Names under the il Top Level Domain (“Rules”). The Appeal was filed on June 24, 1999. On July 7, 1999, in accordance with Rule 20.2 an Advisory Committee Panel (“the Panel”) was assembled. On July 11, 1999, in accordance with Rule 20.5 of the Rules a notice was sent to the Domain Name Holder and to Itzik Nosatzki, the administrative contact for the Domain Name Holder. The Domain Name Holder was requested to submit a response no later than 26.7.1999. On 16.7.1999 the Petitioner filed additional e-mail in support of its position and forwarded a power of attorney as requested by the ACP. On July 30, 1999 the ACP notified the Domain Name Holder that the period set forth in the notice dated July 11, 1999 has lapsed. On 2.8.1999 the administrative contact, Mr. Nosatzki, informed the ACP that he and Interspcae served solely as agents for the Domain Name Holder, and that to the best of his knowledge the Domain Name Holder had no knowledge of the Appeal. On 5.8.1999 the Domain Name Holder requested additional 10 days extension to submit a response. On 6.8.1999 a ten days extension was so provided. On 11.8.1999 the Domain Name Holder informed the ACP that negotiations for a settlement were underway with the Petitioner. The Domain Name Holder requested that our consideration is withheld while the negotiations are underway. Attorney for the Petitioner objected to additional postponements on the grounds that even if such negotiations did take place, they were not successful. The ACP decided not to put on hold the decision, but notified the Domain Name Holder that he may submit his response no later than August 30, 1999. The Domain Name Holder did not file a response to the Appeal, but on September 3, 1999 the Domain Name Holder notified the ACP it is willing to transfer the Domain Name to the Petitioner.

In accordance with Rule 21.3 the ACP declared the closure of the proceedings.

The following decision was issued October 22, 1999 in accordance with Rule 21.3.

Decision:

In light of the agreement by the domain name holder, Mr. Gabriely, to deliver the domain name “toysrus.co.il” to ToysRUs, Inc. or any other company in its control, we decide as follows:

1. The proceedings are hereby declared as closed.
2. ISOC will transfer the domain name “toysrus.co.il” to the name of ToysRUs, Inc. (or a company in its full control).
3. The parties shall each pay $250 to ISOC-IL as costs of these proceedings.

On Behalf of the ACP

Jonathan Agmon

Fisher Weiler Jones is an Israeli-European Intellectual Property law firm. It is the only one that we know of.

We are happy to welcome you to our Israeli blog. Here, we will try to report interesting news relating to Israeli law and procedure and everything that has to do with Intellectual Property.

We would like to start with some domain name decisions. So far, the special tribunal of the Israeli Internet Association (the equivalent of WIPO domain name dispute resolution body) gave 23 decisions. We will try, in the next couple of months, to bring them in full English text.

During passover, the Israeli PTO will not be working. Between March 29, 2010 and April 6, 2010, no documents will be accepted.

Documents that need to be filed should be filed a day after the vacation is over.

The UK Patent Office published a new litigation manual. The manual can be accessed on the UK IPO’s website, here:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-patent/p-law/p-manual/p-manual-litigation.htm

Many countries have laws prohibiting nationals to apply for a patent in a different country in certain cases, before getting permission. US residents, for example, require that every patent will first filed in the US to obtain a foreign filing license.

In the UK, section 23 of the Patent Act states that if you are a UK resident and your application contains information about military technology, or could harm national security or public safety, you must either:

• apply first for the patent in the UK. You can apply abroad 6 weeks after your UK application date, as long as not have been told otherwise.
  or
• get permission from the UK IPO before you apply.

A permission should be requested from the Security Section, Room GR70 at the folloing address:

Intellectual Property Office
Concept House
Cardiff Road
Newport
South Wales
NP10 8QQ
United Kingdom

Phone: +44 (0)1633 813558
Fax: +44 (0)1633 814415

Here, Hon. Justice Kitchin establishes that the test for acknowledging a priority claim is that the person claiming priority must be the same person who filed the priority application or his successor in title in the date of filing the application claiming the priority. Here is the relevant quote:

“In my judgment the effect of Article 4 of the Paris Convention and section 5 of the Act is clear. A person who files a patent application for an invention is afforded the privilege of claiming priority only if he himself filed the earlier application from which priority is claimed or if he is the successor in title to the person who filed that earlier application. If he is neither the person who filed the earlier application nor his successor in title then he is denied the privilege. Moreover, his position is not improved if he subsequently acquires title to the invention. It remains the case that he was not entitled to the privilege when he filed the later application and made his claim. Any other interpretation would introduce uncertainty and the risk of unfairness to third parties. In reaching this conclusion I derive a measure of comfort from the fact that the Board of Appeal of the EPO has adopted the same approach to the interpretation of Article 87 EPC in two cases: J 0019/87 and T 0062/05. “

The case was about an artificial heart valve rendered invalid as it was obvious in light of a few prior art references.

The priority application was a US provisional application.