This is a sample Intellectual Property (IP) due diligence checklist in a corporate acquisition, for the analysis of the seller's IP assets and related matters.
This is a sample indemnification agreement, under which the seller of a product agrees to indemnify the purchaser against liability resulting from claims of patent infringement.
More than a year has passed since Canada overhauled its trademark legislation and acceded to the Madrid Protocol, making it easier than ever to protect trademark rights in Canada. In this IP update, you will learn some of the key reasons why international brand owners should consider designating Canada in international trademark applications.
When you file a Madrid originating application, and designate Canada, you should receive a “Courtesy Letter” from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO). This chart provides a non-exhaustive illustration of where CIPO will direct all correspondence for a Madrid originating application, and why you may wish to appoint a Canadian agent for the Canadian application.
Canadian trademark laws and rules do bear many similarities to those in the US. However, for international brand owners looking to file, prosecute, and enforce trademarks in Canada, it is critical to keep in mind some important features unique to the Canadian system, which are outlined in this resource.
There are many misconceptions or ‘myths’ about patents that have found their way into popular discourse, ranging from what type of innovations are patentable, to how important it is to own and protect your intellectual property (IP) using patents. This resource addresses five common myths about patents to globally help business leaders and technology managers better separate fact from fiction and make informed decisions to protect investments made in innovation.
The EU AI Act is hotly anticipated as being a benchmark AI law that other jurisdictions might look towards when developing their own laws (much like GDPR has become a standard upon which some other countries’ own laws are based). First, much like the GDPR in terms of impact, the EU AI Act will have an extra-territorial scope, extending to providers and users of AI outside the EU where the output is used in the EU. Secondly, the Act does lay down fixed penalties for certain infringements of the Act, the highest fine being 30,000,000 EUR or 6% of a company’s total worldwide annual turnover (3% in the case of an SME or start-up) for non-compliance with the prohibitions of AI practices.
The Eversheds Sutherland European Dictionary of Selected Legal Terms has been specifically designed with US and UK corporate counsel in mind. It brings together in a handy pocket format a guide to more than 1000 legal and commercial expressions commonly encountered or used by US and UK corporate counsel in business and in litigation situations in Europe. By covering these terms in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish, it extends to the European markets which directly serve more than 300 million people.
With organisations increasingly relying on AI technology, UK and EU regulators are turning their attention to effective regulation of AI in an effort to recognise its benefits while instilling confidence in individuals that the increasing use of AI is being deployed appropriately and lawfully. In the EU, the European Commission’s AI Act (“Act”) proposal has undergone further changes following review by EU member states. The Council of the EU approved a compromise version of the Act on 6 December 2022. The European Parliament is expected to vote on the draft by the end of March 2023, with a view to adopting the Act by the end of 2023.
In a first-of-its-kind case to focus on trademark infringement and dilution in the virtual world, a nine-person jury in Manhattan, New York has sided with the French fashion house, Hermès International S.A (“Hermes”) in its legal battle against Sonny Estival aka Mason Rothschild (“Rothschild”), the creator of the “MetaBirken” Non-Fungible tokens (“NFTs”).