SUMMARIES
Marginalia to our legal practice of industrial property protection
Dr. Ficsor Mihály
The study addresses three important issues of the current practice of the Hunagrian Patent Office. Firstly, it deals with restitutio in integrum under the PCT, the EPC and the Hungarian Patent Act, with special regard to time limits for entering the national phase. Secondly, it provides an analysis on the way the provisions of the Trade Mark Act are to be applied concerning the lapse of trade mark protection. Thirdly, it explores the way EU enlargement-related provisions on geographical indications are to be construed.
Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in trademark cases
Dr. Vida Sándor
Two types of trademark proceedings can be brought before the European Court of Justice (ECJ): a) reference cases seeking for preliminary decision; b) requests for revision of decisions rendered by the Court of First Instance of the European Community from the Community Trademark Office. For national courts of last instance reference to the ECJ is obligatory if they have doubts relating to interpretation of the Trademark Directive. For national courts of lower instances reference to the ECJ is discretional. Such decisions of the ECJ are obligatory inter omnes. There are only a few exceptions, when a preliminary decision of the ECJ was not followed by a national court. Considering Hungary's accession to the EU, the Code of Civil Procedure was amended by sec. 155/A and sec. 249/A. These rule on the reference procedure, suspension of the suit by the national court if reference is made to the ECJ, appeal or exclusion of the appeal against the decision of the national court ordering reference. Judgements on revision of Decisions of the Court of First Instance are rare in trademark cases, but their number is increasing.
Supplementary protection certificate (SPC) in Europe
Buzásné Nagy Zsuzsanna
In the European Union two regulations concerning the creation of supplementary protection certificates are in force. The contracting states operate on the same legal basis but interpretation of the law and actual practice are different. There is no relevant case law in Hungary since the SPC system has been introduced recently by the time of accession to the EU. The number of applications and the practice in Hungary is expected to be in line with European trends.
Filing and requirements of the European patent application and unity of the invention
Dr. Tivadar Palágyi:
This article gives comments on Articles 75-82 of the European Patent Convention. Accordingly, it gives an overview on filing and requirements of the European patent application, on forwarding it to the European Patent Office, further on the designation of contracting states and of the inventor and on the date of filing. Besides, it treats the European divisional application. Finally it gives a definition of unity of the invention and of the different claim categories, and treats the lack of unity and the unity with respect to international applications.
Controversial issues of SPC in several EU Member States as reflected in the decisions of the ECJ
Mándi Attila
As a result of the accession of Hungary to the EU Governmental Decree No. 26/2004 (II.26) entered into force on May 1, 2004. The Hungarian regulation is based on EEC Council Regulation concerning the creation of Supplementary Protection Certificate for medicinal products. In the last 10 years several interesting legal actions were initiated and handled both by the national Courts of the Member States of the EU and also the ECJ. It is likely that similar lawsuits will take place in Hungary as well. For this reason some important decisions deserve attention for the Hungarian companies and practitioners as well. The debates revolved particularly around the following questions: Does the basic patent protect the product of the SPC request? Has the product already been the subject of a certificate? What happens if the owner of the marketing authorization refuses to send the documents to the patentee who applies for SPC? What documents must be enclosed to the request in order to obtain a valid filing date?
Interpretation of the term 'product' on the basis of case C-258/99 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products
Szulmanné dr. Binet Mariann
The study gives an overview of the interpretation of the concept product' within the meaning of Article 3 of Council regulation (EC) No 1610/96 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate by the Court of Justice. The need for interpretation arose in a situation in which a producer had obtained marketing authorisations in the Netherlands for two different versions of a herbicide which it manufactured. Both versions contained the same active ingredient but, as a result of an improved manufacturing process for which the producer held a process patent, the second one contained a greater proportion of that ingredient and a smaller proportion of impurities. The producer sought a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) in respect of the second version of the herbicide, but the competent Netherlands authority considered it impossible on the basis that the marketing authorisation was not the first to had been granted in respect of the product. During the appeal procedure the National Court stayed the proceeding and referred to the Court of Justice for preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Articles 1 and 3 of the Regulation. The Court ruled that two products, which differed only in the proportion of the active chemical compound to the impurity they contained, must be regarded the same. In connection with the preliminary ruling the article reviews the possibilities and limits of acquiring an SPC, the appeal procedure followed after the refusal of granting an SPC and the roll of the Court of Justice in the approximation of a Regulation of the European Communities.
Tájékoztató szerzőinknek
Az Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle szerkesztősége örömmel fogad minden, a szellemi tulajdon védelmével foglalkozó írást. A beérkezett kéziratok a szerkesztőbizottság jóváhagyása esetén nyelvhelyességi és a kiadvány stílusához igazodó stilisztikai javítások után kerülnek publikálásra, amelyek nem érintik a mű tartalmi értékét. A kéziratot - a szerkesztőbizottság döntése alapján, az írás témája és mélysége szerint - a Tanulmányok, az Európai jogi figyelő, a Technikatörténet vagy a Hírek, események rovatban tesszük közzé. Az írás terjedelmét nem korlátozzuk, igen hosszú cikket esetlegesen két vagy több részben, egymást követő lapszámokban teszünk közzé a szerzővel történő egyeztetés után.
A szövegszerkesztővel, lehetőleg Rich Text formátumban készült kéziratokat mágneslemezen vagy e-mailban kérjük elküldeni az alábbi címek valamelyikére. Kérjük szerzőinket, hogy a szöveget ne formázzák, zárják balra, kiemelésként csak dőlt betűt alkalmazzanak, a címeket, alcímeket ne húzzák alá, a címhierarchiát lehetőleg számozással jelezzék. Tanulmányuk angol nyelvű összefoglalóját szíveskedjenek kb. 15 sorban mellékelni, nyelvi probléma esetén magyar nyelven írt rezümét kérünk, amely alapján az angol nyelvű változat elkészíthető. A szövegben előforduló rövidítéseket, betűszókat első előfordulásukkor fel kell oldani. Az irodalomjegyzékben, hivatkozásokban kérjük az összes bibliográfiai adat (szerző, cím, kiadó, kiadás helye és éve, oldalszám) feltüntetését.
További kérdéseik esetén a szerkesztőség készséggel áll a rendelkezésükre (Magyar Szabadalmi Hivatal, 1370 Budapest 5, Pf. 552, Bana Zsuzsanna szerkesztő, bana [sddeeffnbfnjndfbn] hpo [uzzuehrgewzgewzug] hu, manyoki [sddeeffnbfnjndfbn] hpo [uzzuehrgewzgewzug] hu, tel.: 474 5554, fax: 474 5555).