Propriété Intellectuelle – MINYOGOG AND ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM – ADVOCATES – IP ATTORNEYS https://minyogoglawfirm.com Créé en 2000, le Cabinet jouit d’une longue expérience dans tous les domaines du droit. Parti d’un Cabinet d’Avocats spécialisé dans le Droit des Affaires Internationales, nous avons développé notre expérience notamment en droit bancaire, mais aussi en droit des investissements, liquidations et privatisations, scissions et restructurations, recouvrement de créances à l’international, procédure pénale, propriété intellectuelle, etc. Wed, 10 May 2023 09:23:33 +0000 fr-FR hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.4 https://minyogoglawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/cropped-Logo-32x32.png Propriété Intellectuelle – MINYOGOG AND ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM – ADVOCATES – IP ATTORNEYS https://minyogoglawfirm.com 32 32 Classification de Nice https://minyogoglawfirm.com/classification-de-nice/ https://minyogoglawfirm.com/classification-de-nice/#respond Wed, 10 May 2023 08:48:33 +0000 https://minyogoglawfirm.com/?p=9446

La douzième édition de la Classification Internationale des produits et des services aux fins de l’enregistrement des marques (Classification de Nice), est entrée en vigueur à l’OAPI depuis le 1er janvier 2023.

Depuis cette date, l’usage de toute autre édition de la classification de Nice n’est plus accepté. Ladite classification est accessible sur le site de l’Organisation Mondiale de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OMPI)

www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/fr/

]]> https://minyogoglawfirm.com/classification-de-nice/feed/ 0 CHANGING IP IN AFRICA… https://minyogoglawfirm.com/changing-ip-in-africa/ https://minyogoglawfirm.com/changing-ip-in-africa/#respond Sun, 20 Dec 2020 07:07:00 +0000 http://radiustheme.com/demo/wordpress/themes/aeen/what-does-marijuana-law-mean-for-you-better-copy-2-copy/

Despite the horrors of the COVID 19 pandemic for more than 3 years, the earth has not stopped turning and the world of industrial property has remained in this gear despite everything. The actors in this field and the institutions that administer them have not ceased to show resilience by imagining means of protecting inventions and distinctive signs that do not require physical meetings between people or physical exchanges of documents.

However, and on the other hand, cybercriminals and counterfeiters have simultaneously improved and developed sophisticated means to circumvent legal channels and profit with impunity from protected and unprotected works.

Under these auspices, organizations that promote intellectual property rights, such as INTA, organize meetings under the banner of « New ideas, New Reality », while those that administer these rights, such as WIPO, Japan Patent Office (JPO) in partnership with the African Union are mobilizing their resources to meet the economic challenges dictated by these multiple changes, particularly in the context of the entry into force of the African Continental Free Trade Area (ZLECAF) and its implications for intellectual property rights (IPR), as we already developed in a previous publication of GLOBAL IP Matrix.

Thus MINYOGOG & ASSOCIATES followed until their implementation the recommendations which had been taken at the time in the direction of the reinforcement of the means and the rights of intellectual property. They have indeed been followed by governmental and non-governmental authorities such as OAPI (African Intellectual Property Organization) which has ratified new rules applicable to the protection of titles and the fight against fraud, in particular against the counterfeit.

In line with existing international treaties and the practices in force in other intellectual property offices in the world and in Africa, OAPI has been able to harmonize intellectual property law in the context of ZLECAF.

Among other innovations in terms of distinctive signs, we can cite the registration now possible of new types of marks, such as sound marks – olfactory marks – audiovisual marks – movement marks – hologram marks – series marks. Similarly, new categories of trademarks have emerged, such as collective certification marks and co-ownership marks, the regime of which has been revised. For these two categories of marks, it will now be necessary to use regulations subject to stricter requirements, in particular if they are not contrary to public order and morality. Another innovation to highlight: the same request can relate to one or more classes of products and/or to one or more classes of services; also the official filing costs have seen a decrease.

With the introduction of substantive examination, trademarks will increasingly be subject to refusal of publication due to requirements relating to their distinctiveness, priority over the rights of third parties, whether or not they affect public order and morality.

Regarding the formalities, a new exception can be raised ex officio by the OAPI when it is found that the mark reproduces, imitates or contains among its elements an international common name.

However, and despite the refusal of publication, the file will be subject to a review of form and substance. If the application is not rejected following the formal examination
and substance, it will then be published in order to start the opposition period. In this way, the opposition, which is no longer against a registration but against an application for registration, may be suspended at the joint request of the parties for a period of three months, renewable once, when the prior right invoked is in the process of being registration.

With these grounds for refusal, the entry into force of the divisional application regime provides a solution for applicants who do not wish to abandon their mark.

Another important innovation concerns inventions, with the new regime of co-ownership. Indeed, the new regulations highlight the rights of co-owners of a patent as follows:

a) each of the co-owners may exploit the invention for his own benefit, subject to fairly compensating the other co-owners who do not personally exploit the invention or who have not granted exploitation licenses. In the absence of an agreement between the co-owners, this indemnity is fixed by the competent national court.

b) each of the co-owners may sue for infringement for his sole benefit. The co-owner who acts in infringement must notify the act of referral to the other co-owners; this action is suspended until said notification is reported.

c) each of the co-owners may grant to a third party a non-exclusive exploitation license for his benefit, subject to fairly compensating the other co-owners who do not personally exploit the invention or who have not granted an exploitation licence. In the absence of an amicable agreement, this indemnity is fixed by the competent national court.

However, the concession project must be notified to the other co-owners, accompanied by an offer to transfer the share at a determined price.

Within a period of three (03) months following this notification, any of the co-owners may oppose the granting of the license on the condition of acquiring the share of the person who wishes to grant the license.

In the absence of agreement within the period provided for in the preceding sub-paragraph, the price is set by the competent national court. The parties have a period of one (01) month from the notification of the judgment or, in the event of an appeal, of the judgment, to renounce the concession of the license or the purchase from co-ownership without prejudice to any damages that may be due; the expenses are borne by the renouncing party.

d) an exclusive exploitation license can only be granted with the agreement of all the co-owners or with the authorization of the competent national court.

e) each co-owner may, at any time, transfer his share. The co-owners have a right of pre-emption for a period of three (03) months from the notification of the proposed transfer. Failing agreement on the price, it is set by the competent national court. The parties have a period of one month from the notification of the judgment or, in the event of an appeal, of the ruling, to renounce the sale or purchase of the co-ownership share without prejudice to the damages -interest that may be due; the costs shall be borne by the renouncing party.

(f) the co-owner of a patent may notify the other co-owners that he is abandoning his share in their favor. As of the registration of this abandonment in the special register of patents or, as of its notification to the Organization, the said co-owner is discharged from all obligations with regard to the other co-owners; they share the abandoned share in proportion to their rights in the co-ownership, unless otherwise agreed.

With regard to international applications under the PCT, OAPI may avail itself of the provisions of Articles 20 and 36 of the PCT relating respectively to the international search report and the international preliminary examination report. These provisions are applicable mutatis mutandis to the cases provided for in the validation agreements referred to in Article 10 paragraph 6 of the Agreement. (Depending on the terms of the validation agreement signed between the parties, these may be examination validation agreements the substantive examination is no longer carried out these are the search reports produced by the partner office which are authentic; with regard to grant validation agreements, the examination is also carried out at OAPI independently of that carried out by the partner office.)

Among all of them, the most remarkable provisions relate to infringements of rights and disputes before the competent courts. It is important to know that disputes relating to the recognition, scope or exploitation of the rights provided for in the Bangui Agreement (regulatory text of the OAPI) fall within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States. These are also competent for the related criminal litigation.

Intellectual property rights are exclusive rights that confer a monopoly of exploitation on their holder. These rights constitute a factor of technical and commercial progress; they stimulate innovation and contribute to the economic development of States, which is why infringements of exclusive IP rights constitute counterfeiting.

Since then, more severe measures have been validated by the member states of OAPI, with border measures against counterfeiters and more severe sanctions to deter them. In order to speed up the infringement procedure and prevent infringements, the requirement for certificates and certificates of non-cancellation and non-forfeiture of titles before the seizure-infringement order has been removed. The competent court may order any urgent measures on request when the circumstances require that these measures not be taken jointly, in particular when any delay would be likely to cause irreparable harm to the applicant. The competent court may also order, if necessary under penalty, the production of all documents or information held by the defendant or by any person who has been found in possession of infringing products.

As part of the on-demand measures, customs officers detain suspect goods as part of their checks, at the written request of the holder of a registered trademark or the exclusive right of use.

It may also automatically withhold goods likely to infringe a registered trademark or an exclusive right of use, even in the absence of a written request from the right holder. The public prosecutor, the applicant and the importer of the goods are informed without delay of this deduction. In addition, to bring his legal action, the plaintiff can obtain from the customs administration the names and addresses of the sender, the importer and the consignee of the detained goods.

Given its strong presence in the territory of OAPI, MINYOGOG & ASSOCIATES wanted to implement these new rules by reaching out to users of the OAPI system, which are mainly SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises) through seminars of capacities improvement, symposiums, the professional  »talks », especially during the 21st World Intellectual Property Day.

MINYOGOG & ASSOCIATES also accompanied government actors such as the Ministry of SMEs during national SMEs days on the theme “Standardization and promotion of intellectual property as a means of protecting local industry.

The challenge that remains is to bring the greatest number of actors to make it his own of these new measures at the same time as the change in the continental economic order. We believe that this objective can be achieved through the multiplication of virtual meetings given the number of people who are increasingly interested in this effective means of communication.

Brice NYAKOUA

 

OAPI Accredited Agent
Partner at MINYOGOG & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM

]]> https://minyogoglawfirm.com/changing-ip-in-africa/feed/ 0