International Update Continued plaintiff brought forth an action of infringement and passing off asserting its prior rights and seeking grant of injunction against the defendant’s use of the said mark. The defendant countered by making known the limitation imposed by the Registrar on Cheri - its specification had been restricted to ‘pharmaceutical preparations’ while ‘medicinal preparations’ had been struck off since Cheri/Cherry could be construed as descriptive of the latter on account of its medicinal properties. The defendant also argued that Cheri, a pharmaceutical preparation, was dissimilar in nature to the product Multi Cherry, a dietary supplement. For its part, the plaintiff asserted that though its registration had been limited to ‘pharmaceutical preparations’, the statutory definition of infringement was wider and protected against misuse re identical and similar goods, provided there was likelihood of confusion. The court held that as the plaintiffs had specifically given up a claim over ‘medicinal preparations’, the word ‘similar’ for the purposes of determining infringement in the case at hand would have to be construed more narrowly than in the usual course and rights over the mark Cheri could not be extended to other goods for which protection was never meant to be in the first place. Further the plaintiff’s product was a pharmaceutical preparation governed under the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, whereas the defendant’s product was essentially a proprietary food product governed under Indian Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. While the former was a ‘drug’, therapeutic in nature, and meant to be used ‘as directed by a physician’, the latter was a food product to be consumed on a dietician’s recommendation and one which clearly disclaimed it could prevent or cure any disease. Considering these factors, the court held there was sufficient evidence to say that the goods of the plaintiff and defendant were dissimilar. In its opinion, the facts also established that likelihood of consumer confusion was unlikely. Thus, it refused to injunct use of Multi Cherry. The court’s nuanced reasoning is a welcome comment on the blurred line between pharmaceutical products and dietary supplements. However, whether the factors considered will be as apparent to consumers rendering them impervious to confusion, is a question only time will settle. some significant changes to the IP procedures in this country. The new law will introduce a unified set of administrative procedure rules for all types of IP rights, as opposed to a separate set of rules, which is currently in force. Under the new law, the period of time for trade mark applicant to reply to an opposition has been reduced from three to two months. The current mainly oral hearings in opposition and appeal proceedings will be replaced with the obligatory written exchange of arguments, with the possibility of oral hearings if one of the parties requests them or if the Board of Appeals decides they are necessary. Also, if the dispute is settled before the deadline to reply to an opposition expires, the new law provides for a 50 percent reimbursement of the opposition fees. The appeal proceedings will also undergo some major changes as they will no longer be dealt with within the administrative procedure, but will be subject to the separate de novo civil court proceedings. The law will also introduce new obligations and rights for the patent and trade mark attorneys. These obligations and rights have not been explicitly regulated so far. Kosovo PETOSEVIC The Laws amending the Law on Trade marks and the Law on Patents entered into force in Kosovo on 8 September, 2015. The changes aim to bring Kosovo IP legislation in line with the European Union legislation. Below is the summary of the most important changes. The Law amending the Law on Trade marks also does not introduce any changes to the substantive part nor to the trade mark registration procedure. However, the amendments introduce some changes and additions to the basic law. As the basic law did not include provisions on reinstatement or restoration of rights, up until recently the parties relied on the provisions of the Law on Administrative Procedure as lex generalis. However, this law did not provide a subjective deadline upon which a party could request the reinstatement of rights; it only said that the request for restitution could be filed within a period of 10 days from the removal or elimination of obstacles, but no later than one year from the last day the omitted deadline expired. The new provision that has been added includes a subjective deadline, meaning that the holder can take action within a period of three months from the date they found out that a certain right had been lost and within the objective deadline of one year. Another change concerns the renewal of trade marks. Up until now, if the holder wanted to limit the list of goods/services when renewing a certain trade mark, he had to file a separate request and pay an additional fee. The amendments make it possible to limit the list by filing the renewal request only. The amendments also introduce changes to provisions related to the available remedies in case of trade mark infringement. The Law on Contested Procedure already covered most of the issues introduced by the amendments. However, an important change is that in addition to requesting the removal, confiscation and destruction of infringing goods, the plaintiff can now request the removal, confiscation and destruction of the materials and tools used in the production of these goods. Libya NJQ & ASSOCIATES This is to inform you that the trade marks Registrar confirmed that it would be possible to lodge renewal applications in respect of expired trade marks, regardless to their expiry date, until 31 December 2015. After said date, all expired (lapsed) trademarks will be treated as cancelled. It is possible to issue registration certificates for expired applications after paying the normal renewal fee as well as paying the registration fee simultaneously. To submit renewal applications or obtaining registration certificates, applicants are required to provide specimen of the mark, filing number, filing date, applicant details, class, and list of goods. No other documents are needed. Russia PETOSEVIC The amendments to the Law on Protection of Competition were adopted in Russia on 5 October 2015 and will enter into force on 5 January 2016. The most important change concerns Chapter 2 called “Unfair Competition”, which now includes eight articles (141–148) instead of one, as various forms of unfair competition are defined in more detail. continued on page 6 5 Latvia PETOSEVIC On 1 January 2016, the new Industrial Property Institutions and Procedures Act will enter into force in Latvia, bringing