No longer the Forbidden Land of Europe, Albania has just thrust itself into the commercial foreground, with effect from 19 May 2007. That's the date when the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (Geneva Act) enters into force. Before that date, on 19 March 2007, the Hague Act (1960) enters into force and Albania, becoming bound by Articles 1 to 7 of the Stockholm (Complementary) Act (1967), will become a member of the Hague Union.Everything you wanted to know about the Hague Agreement here
Albania, according to Wikipedia, the Albanian Foreign Ministry and the CIA
Today's Official Journal of the European Commission carries a "Notice of initiation of an examination procedure concerning obstacles to trade within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94, consisting of measures adopted by the Separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu affecting patent protection in respect of recordable compact discs". Not having seen one of these things before, the IPKat was naturally curious to know a little more about it.On 15 January 2007 Koninklijke Philips Electronics filed a complaint. Its grievance was that it had invented some of the core technologies for recordable compact discs, for which it held some patents. Taiwan etc (a.k.a. "Chinese Taipei") has granted compulsory licences in respect of those patents, illegally in Philips' opinion. The licensee is a local manufacturer, Gigastorage Corporation. Article 76 of the Patent Act of Chinese Taipei provides for the granting of compulsory licences in certain specified circumstances. According to Philips, Article 76 is inconsistent with Article 28(1)(a) of the TRIPs Agreement because the patent owner's exclusive rights have not been respected. Article 31 of TRIPs permits the granting of compulsory patent licences, but only under certain conditions that have not been fulfilled in this instance. The Commission agrees that a prima facie case has been made out and a full investigation will now take place.
.jpg)
The IPKat is fascinated to see how this all works out and will do his best to see whether the Commission's own TRIPs enforcement measures will be sufficient to resolve the dispute without recourse to the World Trade Organization's own dispute resolution procedure. Merpel says, gosh, that's the first I've ever heard of Chinese Taipei - but not, I suspect, the last ... Silly, says the IPKat, "Chinese Taipei" is the English for the Chinese way of saying "Taiwan".Right: Philips' history stretches back to the days of non-compact, non-recordable discs - which still seemed pretty cool at the time
How recordable CDs work here
Chinese Taipei here
Taiwan here
Formosa here
Tidings from Tirana; Chinese Taipei comes under EU CD-R scrutiny
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
![[UPCKat] UPC Court of Appeal confirms that opt-outs may be withdrawn for patents subject to pre-UPC national litigation](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpmrXJ0cC3SxOoivC5ULhM28pQmX9tykkfzReC-ZaHlNPANbFKM6qY-jGJUpJbI6VWkoJH2kL867Uqs-KAOosZHW-Voz25uAZwOw2RUO65FeTgLEbGFtTAq6tQ-9-uzLRW4oHj1EcMR2xqvSOVOXN2BSRYuMJvTGXub5Htcij5mAgo2HX2M90LXA/s72-c/cat%20opt%20out.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html