![]() ![]() The appeal here is focused on one a subset of the patents covering Opana - a fight between Endo and generic manufacturers who want to start distributing the drug once again.Įndo Pharmaceuticals Inc. In response to a new FDA request, Endo again removed the reformulated version from the market. Endo had previously pulled Opana ER from the market in 2012 and then re-launched in a “non-crushable form.” However, that form continued to be abused (including by liquefying and injecting). In 2017, the FDA requested that (reformulated) Opana ER be removed from the market in response to the high risk of its illicit use. This case focuses on patents covering the opioid drug oxymorphone that Endo sells as Opana ER. The people of the UK can also rest easier knowing that TRUMP TV will not be controlled by a notorious troll.įederal Circuit: Hardening the Line on Method-of-Treatment Claims Thus, a key holding in this case is that a pattern of bad-faith trademark filing is admissible as evidence that a new filing was also done in bad faith. It made it less likely that the inference of bad faith could be refuted.Ĭonsideration of such evidence in the Registry proceedings accorded with the overriding objective of deciding cases justly. Gleissner had made numerous other applications to register well-known trade marks with which they had no connection (for example EUIPO) was potentially probative of The fact that other companies owned or controlled by Mr. It raised some very serious matters, which required a detailed explanation and refutation, in evidence. The similar fact evidence was not mere rumour or supposition. That, of itself, required a very clear explanation to refute an inference of bad faith. had applied to register a trade mark which was plainly associated with Mr Trump, with whom it had no connection. The High Court has now affirmed that judgment (1) rejecting the argument that the hearing officer was biased - finding it “obviously unsustainable” and (2) agreeing with the bad-faith finding. The UK IPO Hearing Officer sided with DTTM. Trump International Limited is not related to President Trump in any way and is rather owned by Michael Gleissner an “ infamous trademark troll.” To avoid confusion, I’ll use the name Gleissner rather than Trump Int’l.Ī few days before the 2016 election, Gleissner applied to register ‘TRUMP TV” - DTTM opposed. had filed its opposed trademark application in bad faith and also acted in bad faith during the proceedings.Ī quirk here regarding the names –– DTTM most likely stands for “Donald Trump Trademarks” and is a holding company owned by President Trump and/or his family. In a decision today, the High Court of Justice (Chancery Div.) has upheld the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) decision siding with DTTM and finding that Trump Int’l. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |