Apple files intellectual property action against Stassen Exports

World-renowned US tech giant Apple Inc. has filed an intellectual property action in the Commercial High Court of Colombo by way of Plaint last week against Stassen Exports Ltd., in line with a strong stance taken in protecting their intellectual property rights worldwide.

The Plaintiff, Apple Inc., set out in its Plaint that, in the backdrop where ‘Apple’ is one of the most well-known and valuable international brands and the ‘Apple’ device mark of the Plaintiff, consisting of an apple with a leaf slanting to the right and a distinctive bite taken out of the right-hand side, is one of the most famous and widely recognised marks of all time,  the Defendant Stassen Exports had dishonestly applied for and obtained registration of a mark unlawfully/unfairly resembling the said ‘Apple’ device mark of the Plaintiff.

Co-founded by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak and incorporated in 1977, Apple Inc. is a global leader and innovator in mobile communication and media devices, personal computers and related software, services, accessories, networking solutions and third-party digital content and applications, being the company behind internationally-acclaimed products, services and applications such as iPhone, iPad, Mac, iPod, Apple Watch, Apple TV, iCloud, Apple Pay, iTunes, App Store, Apple Music, Apple Books and much more.  

It is one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world by market capitalisation and one of the highest valued corporate entities of all time, becoming the first publicly traded company in the US to be valued at over $ 1 trillion in August 2018.

The Plaintiff pleaded that the Defendant’s mark ought to be nullified under Section 134 of the Intellectual Property Act No. 36 of 2003 as well as on the grounds of the registration amounting to an act contrary to honest trade practices in contravention of Chapter XXXII of the Intellectual Property Act. 

The Defendant appeared in court on 17 June, the summons returnable date, and High Court Judge M. Ahsan R. Marikkar fixed 19 August as the date for the Defendant to file its answer.

Apple Inc., the Plaintiff, was represented in Court by Dr. Harsha Cabral President’s Counsel, who appeared with Nishan Premathiratne and Migara Cabral, on the instructions of Juanita Desiree Perera.

The Defendant Stassen Exports was represented by Nihal Fernando President’s Counsel, with Harshula Seneviratne, on the instructions of Upendra Gunasekara. 

Unilever to stop US ads on Facebook, Twitter for rest of year

Unilever said on Friday it will stop advertising on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter in the United States for the rest of the year, citing "divisiveness and hate speech during this polarized election period in the U.S."

The consumer goods company, which owns brands like Dove Soap and Lipton tea, joins a growing advertising boycott against Facebook as part of the "Stop Hate for Profit" campaign started by U.S. civil rights groups after the death of George Floyd. The effort called on Facebook, which owns Instagram, to do more to stop hate speech and misinformation.

Shares of Facebook and Twitter both fell more than 7%.

"Continuing to advertise on these platforms at this time would not add value to people and society. We will be monitoring ongoing and will revisit our current position if necessary," Unilever said in a statement.

"The Stop Hate for Profit" campaign asks businesses not to advertise on Facebook's services in July. It focuses on specific recommendations for Facebook, though Twitter has also long been under pressure to clean up alleged abuses and misinformation on its platform.

"We have developed policies and platform capabilities designed to protect and serve the public conversation, and as always, are committed to amplifying voices from under-represented communities and marginalized groups," said Sarah Personette, vice president for Twitter's Global Client Solutions.

"We are respectful of our partners' decisions and will continue to work and communicate closely with them during this time."

More than 90 advertisers including Verizon Communications and The North Face, a unit of VF Corp, have joined the campaign, according to a list by ad activism group Sleeping Giants, a partner in the campaign.

Earlier this week, ice-cream maker Ben & Jerry's, a unit of Unilever, said it would pull its Facebook and Instagram ads in the United States.

In a statement, a Facebook spokeswoman pointed to its civil rights audit and investments in Artificial Intelligence that allow it to find and take action on hate speech.

"We know we have more work to do, and we'll continue to work with civil rights groups, GARM, and other experts to develop even more tools, technology and policies to continue this fight," she said, referring to the Global Alliance for Responsible Media.

Other groups in the campaign include the NAACP, Anti-Defamation League, Common Sense, Free Press and Color of Change.

'Match-fixing law will be a game-changer in India'

Making match-fixing a criminal offence will be a "game-changer" and the "single-most-effective thing" for sport in India. That is the strong belief of Steve Richardson, the coordinator of investigations at the ICC's anti-corruption unit (ACU). Ajit Singh, the head of the BCCI's ACU, concurs with that viewpoint, adding that India also needs a "very strong law" against betting, which is believes is the source of corruption in cricket in India.

With India scheduled to host two global marquee men's events in the next three years - the 2021 T20 World Cup followed by the ODI World Cup in 2023 - Richardson urged the Indian government to consider creating a match-fixing law for sport like its neighbour Sri Lanka.

In 2019 Sri Lanka became the first major cricket-playing country in South Asia to criminalise match-fixing with punishments including a 10-year prison sentence. The ICC ACU had helped the then Sri Lanka government to draft the legislation in the wake of extensive investigations that found several Lankan cricketers including former captain Sanath Jayasuriya guilty of breaching the corruption code.

"India has got two ICC global events coming up: the T20 World Cup [in 2021] and the World Cup in 2023," Richardson said. "At the moment with no legislation in place, we'll have good relations with Indian police, but they are operating with one hand tied behind their back. We will do everything we can to disrupt the corruptors. And we do, we make life very, very difficult for them as far and as much as we can to stop them from operating freely.

"But the legislation would be a game-changer in India. We have currently just under 50 investigations. The majority of those have links back to corruptors in India. So it would be the single-most-effective thing to happen in terms of protecting sport if India introduces match-fixing legislation."

Both Richardson and Singh were participating in a panel discussion on the subject of 'Does India need a match-fixing legislation?' as part of the Sports Law & Policy Symposium held on June 20. The rest of the panel comprised Supreme Court lawyer Rebecca John, who represented Sreesanth in the IPL spot-fixing case, senior journalist Pradeep Magazine, and Suhrith Parthasarthy, a lawyer in the Madras High Court.

More than the players, Richardson stressed the law would deter the corruptors, who he said were right now freely moving around. "I could actually deliver to the Indian police or the Indian government now at least eight names of people who are what I would term serial offenders, constantly approaching players to try and get them to fix matches," Richardson said. "At the moment with the lack of legislative framework in India it is very limited what the police can do, and to that extent they have my great sympathy because they try as professionally and hard as they can to make the existing legislation work, but the reality is it wasn't framed with sports corruption in mind.

"So the reason that there is an imperative for legislation specific to match-fixing - yes, it is about the players, but more importantly it is about those outside the sport who actually corrupt the players and are organising and pulling the strings of these networks. Those are the people I would like to see dealt with under match-fixing law."

Mohammad Amir, Salman Butt and Mohammad Asif were prosecuted under the 1906 Prevention of Corruption Act Getty Images

To support his stance, Richardson provided the example of the Bribery Act in the UK, which was used to prosecute former Pakistan batsman Nasir Jamshed, who pleaded guilty to charges of bribery in the PSL. Jamshed was handed a 17-month sentence in February by a Manchester court. In 2010, the Pakistan trio of Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir were prosecuted under the 1906 Prevention of Corruption Act which was repealed by the Bribery Act.

"I see this from a slightly different perspective inasmuch as I do not see the players as the main problem when it comes to match-fixing," Richardon said. "The players are the final link in the chain who actually would go out on to the pitch and perform any act if they had agreed to do so. The problem that I see is further upstream and it's in the people who are organising the corruption, people who are paying the players the money, and most of those sit outside of the sport."

'No adequate law to cover match-fixing'

As far Singh was concerned, he said the BCCI's ACU could do "little" as far as the "non-participants" were concerned. But Singh, a former Indian Police Service officer, who served as DGP Rajasthan before taking charge at the BCCI in 2018, agreed that there had been "no adequate law to cover match-fixing", which both the federal government as well as the courts have recognised previously.

In 2013, the then Indian government even presented a draft bill for the prevention of sporting fraud, but it has not been acted on subsequently. The draft bill covers the definition of sporting fraud, the perpetrators, and the punishment - which can extend to five years of imprisonment, a fine of INR 10 lakh or five times the benefit derived from the sporting fraud.

In 2016, the RM Lodha Committee, which drew up the framework that paved way for the structural reform of the BCCI, told the Supreme Court that the Law Commission of India (LCI) should look into criminalising match-fixing in sport. Two years later, the LCI agreed that match-fixing of any kind in sport, including cricket, should be a criminal offence carrying significant punishment. Calling gambling and betting two sides of the same coin, the LCI also recommended to the Indian government that it consider regulating betting and gambling activities as against imposing complete prohibition.

"So definitely there is a requirement for a law which criminalises match-fixing," Singh said. According to Singh, the roots of match-fixing lie in betting, which he described as a "malaise" in India.

"Just to make windfall gains illegally in an illegal way through betting they [corruptors] approach the participants - it could be a player, it could be a curator, it could be a match official, whoever. And the amounts of the money involved are unimaginable."

Betting law - 'totally archaic and the punishments are laughable'

Singh said unverified accounts indicate annual turnover from betting in India is in the range of INR 30-40,000 crores. Singh pointed out that the corrupters were not just operating in international sport, but were also busy influencing players and matches in domestic cricket with some even posing as "godfathers" to young players

Singh said the BCCI's ACU had used data agencies like Sportradar to examine the extent of betting in some T20 matches in Indian domestic cricket. "It's not the IPL, but it's the state leagues. It (betting) comes to the tune of maybe [up to 20 million] euros or pounds. So the amount of betting even in small matches is so much that the temptation to fall prey to the demands or requests of these people is very high. And it is more so with people who don't see much of a future for themselves.

"Cricket is played in rural areas and mofussil towns and there are certain godfathers have come to finance them. They see a promising player, finance the player, become his patron, and ultimately what happens is when he is at a level where his games are televised, where he has made it to a certain league, then they extract the pound of flesh. So it needs to be curbed heavily, both at the match-fixing and betting level."

As it happens betting is illegal in India, but Singh pointed out it was governed by a law that was "laughable" in its current form. The law is the 1867 Public Gambling Act. Those breaching it barely blink an eye, Singh said, with only a cursory monetary penalty to pay. "We need to make a very strong law against betting. Right now the law that exists is totally archaic and the punishments in it are laughable. You impose a fine of INR 200 or 500 and that's the end of it."

Both John and Richardson agreed that the Gambling Act ought to be replaced as soon as possible. "Its quite an anomaly that you can bet INR 500 on the outcome of a match for a side to win/lose in India and that would be illegal," Richardson said. "However, if you offer USD 30,000 to a player to underperform in that match then there is nothing illegal in that."

Richardson pointed out that betting and corruption should been seen as separate only because betting was legal in many countries. "We have to be very, very clear here that betting itself is not corruption. So what is corruption is people who are trying to get to players to corrupt them in order to make money from betting."

Singh said part of the proposed law against sports corruption should comprise a "specialised" investigating agency, "which keeps a proper database, which can join the dots, which when it sees an alert raised on its screen so it could investigate. Also the law is to facilitate better investigation and better appreciation of what evidence can be collected and what evidence is available."

source:espncricinfo

Intellectual Property News

LG Wins Intellectual Property Lawsuit Against Beko

The Munich District Court has ruled in favour of LG in the intellectual property (IP) infringement lawsuit against the Turkish-based home appliance companies Beko Deutschland and Grundig Intermedia.

The case centred on the unlicensed implementation of LG’s patented freezer door-ice making technology. This technology was developed by LG for its side-by-side refrigerator models and is included in a portfolio of more than 400 patents relating to door-ice making tech.

LG is now seeking an injunction on the sale of infringing refrigerators that are produced by Ar-çelik A.Ş. in Turkey and then imported and sold by Beko and Grundig.

“LG Electronics is pleased with the court’s decision that Turkish companies should not be allowed to continue using technology developed by many LG engineers over thousands of hours without due compensation,” said Jeon Saeng-gyu, Executive Vice President of LG’s Intellectual Property Centre.

“On behalf of innovators and creators world over, LG will continue to challenge the practice of intellectual property theft by companies that believe they can benefit from the hard work of others.”

source:channelnews

Panerai Watches Defends Intellectual Property Against Copycat Manufacturer In China

talian/Swiss watchmaker Panerai recently announced it had earned a “favorable decision” in a major intellectual property case against Chinese manufacturer Awsky regarding the sale of counterfeit Panerai timepieces. The court decision, handed down by Guangdong Shenzhen Luohu District People’s Court in China on October 12, 2019, and finalized April 13, 2020, has demanded an immediate halt to all sales of infringing timepieces along with a sizeable financial compensation to Panerai. Awsky has been one of the most flagrant offenders in the Panerai counterfeit space, producing 48 separate models infringing on Panerai’s marks and distributing them through at least 16 different online sales platforms. Information exists to suggest that this is not the first time the defendant has engaged in anti-competitive behavior with Panerai prior to the facts of the current suit. This is seen as a big win for watch brands who rarely have many resources in stopping copycats and counterfeiters in China, where many of the watches are produced. The case outcome is likely rather narrow, not setting a great precedent that would materially help other brands from saving time and court effort in stopping future offenders. It does, however, show that the courts in China are by no means deaf to the commercial problems caused by unfair businesses practices all the way to flat-out intellectual property theft.

Counterfeit luxury watches are not a new phenomenon, and this legal decision in Panerai’s favor is the latest in a line of copyright cases by Swiss brands stretching back for many years. The latest decision against Awsky, however, stands out for several reasons. First, there is the origin of the court’s ruling to consider. China is a nation with notoriously lax standards when it comes to international copyright laws, so much so that entire industries in China have been built up around the production of not just imitations of luxury watches, but high fashion, toys, appliances, and even entire cars. The fact that a Chinese court has ruled against a manufacturer in China so harshly, even after multiple offenses, could potentially be the sign of a sea change in the way international copyright law is enforced in China. More so, this is not a case where all the infringing behavior involves mere trademark infringement, i.e., copying the logo. In this instance, the entire watch and theme of the brand are, in some senses, protected.

Many of the Awsky designs involved in the court decision might not be called counterfeits by the strictest definition of the word because they are not exact copies include protected trademarks (logos). Not only are the watches not labeled as Panerai products, with a clearly visible Awsky brand name, but many of the designs are not exact recreations of existing Panerai products. One of the most vibrant examples of this involves an Awsky model judged as a counterfeit of the black cased Panerai Radiomir PAM00532. While this Awsky watch clearly copies certain aspects of the Radiomir’s design, including the blacked-out cushion case, lumed sandwich dial, and straight lugs, there are several immediately recognizable differences between the two pieces. The Awsky’s crown is roughly double the size of the Panerai’s with a drastically different shape, the handset is a skeleton set copied from the Omega Seamaster Professional rather than any Panerai product, and the Awsky features a 3 o’clock date window that has no counterpart on the Panerai.

None of this is to say what Awsky was doing is not ethically reprehensible, but it leads to questions about just how effective the precedent set here will be. Many brands, some considered far more scrupulous than a marque like Awsky, often use elements of more famous watch designs in original models. For example, a large portion of the dive watch market utilizes case designs that could, in theory, be called copies or imitations of the Rolex Oyster case, and many similar examples of concept reuse exist throughout the industry. It seems unlikely that this court decision will completely erase this practice.

The decision of the Chinese courts should probably be seen as evidence that companies whose entire practice is meant to ride on the good and demand created by another company are not lawful. Awsky may have tried to curb strict trademark infringement but they still engaged in too much behavior that makes their brand, marketing, and sales feel too much like that of Panerai for the court to deem their business practices innocent and non-infringing. The result for other brands is that only when copycats are engaged in ongoing and rampant copycat-style business practices will the court step in to shut down the competitor. It is not believed that this court result will put a significant damper on illegal timepiece counterfeiting activity. More so, Panerai has a legal obligation to assert and attempt to protect its claimed intellectual property rights. This is because, in many instances, trademark intellectual property rights can be lost or genericized if the original rights owners do not try to protect them.

source:ablogtowatch

Saudi intellectual property authority to block 231 websites that violate regulations

The Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property (SAIP) has said 231 websites have been found to violate intellectual property laws in Saudi Arabia, and that it would prevent them from being accessed in the Kingdom.
In a continuous effort by SAIP to minimize violations against intellectual property rights, the authority organized an online inspection campaign of websites and platforms that were suspected of violating intellectual property laws, including sites based outside the Kingdom, to monitor and analyze for possible breaches.
The sites listed included streaming service websites, encrypted sports channels, websites that offer to download books in PDF form, and unlicensed websites that offer downloading and music streaming services that violate user rights. 
SAIP has also detected websites that are selling subscriptions for encrypted TV channels through software or illicit streaming devices for the purpose of displaying materials in an illegal format.
SAIP confirmed that these practices violate copyright protection law and entail financial penalties and fines that may reach up to SR250,000 ($66,000). In addition to the applied fines, the violations may cause the closure of sites, or the cancelation of commercial licenses, and in some cases could lead to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months.
The authority stressed that it would not tolerate nor condone such violations, and called upon citizens and residents to support its efforts to respect intellectual property rights through communicating via its official channels.

Zoom sees 900% user growth in UAE as remote working picks up amid Covid-19

Video conferencing platform Zoom's user base in the UAE grew 900 per cent to reach 1 million within a month after the country authorised its use in March, the company said.

Within the first week after the ban was lifted, Zoom gained 100,000 new free and paid users in the UAE, the US-based firm said in a statement on Sunday. In addition, 250 schools have also taken advantage of Zoom’s offer to lift the 40 minutes meeting time limit for the education sector.

The company, however, did not disclose the total number of customers it has in the UAE currently.

The company is “leaning into the Gulf and is very optimistic about the growth potential in the Middle East", he added.“At Zoom, we continue to have conversations with the region’s governments about how [it] is a valuable tool that helps increase productivity and growth, meets the highest standards of security for its users, and can support the development of a digitally-based global economy,” Sam Tayan, managing director for the Middle East and Africa at Zoom, said.

In March, UAE authorities eased restrictions on the usage of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) platforms including Microsoft’s Skype, Google Hangouts and Zoom to facilitate remote work and distant learning amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Zoom, which has been adopted by businesses, schools, universities and individuals, is used for social networking, as well as for entertainment and fitness classes over the last two months.

“Zoom is committed to infrastructure, marketing and services investment going forward in the UAE and looks forward to the continued cooperation with the government,” Mr Tayan said.

The video conferencing platform's performance in the UAE is in line with its global user growth, which have soared in the wake of the pandemic.

“The Covid-19 crisis has driven higher demand for distributed, face-to-face interactions and collaboration using Zoom ... use cases have grown rapidly as people integrated Zoom into their work, learning, and personal lives,” Eric Yuan, founder and chief executive of the firm said earlier this month.Zoom said the number of paying customers increased to 265,400 at the end of the first quarter this year, a quarter-on-quarter rise of 225 per cent.

The company’s first quarter net profit for the three months ending March 30 climbed on the back of higher revenue and number of users.

Net profit to shareholders surged to $27 million (Dh99.5m), which was 135-times the $200,000 earned in the same period a year ago. Revenue for the period reached $328.2m – a yearly increase of 169 per cent.

In its guidance for the second quarter, the company forecast revenue in the range of $495m to $500m, and for the full year it expects sales of between $1.77 billion and $1.8bn. In its last financial year ending January 31, the company made $622.6m in revenue.

Zoom has also attracted scrutiny from regulators and privacy advocates who have voiced concerns about the platform's security.

Last week, the company said it would offer end-to-end encryption (E2EE) to both paying customers and free users after initially saying that the extra security would only be given to paying customers.

UAE nuclear smart systems get intellectual property certifications

The UAE Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation (FANR) has obtained the Intellectual Property certifications for two of its prominent smart systems - Nuclear Technology Portal (NuTech) and FANR Awards, Recognition and Appreciation System (Faras).

 

The certifications, issued by the Ministry of Economy, reflect FANR’s commitment towards developing smart solutions in support of UAE government smart transformation of its services as well as adopting the criteria of Mohammed bin Rashid Government Excellence Award to ensure customers and employees’ efficiency and happiness.

 

"FANR’s smart services is driven by its innovation strategy to support UAE innovation efforts. Being the nuclear regulator in the UAE, our business necessitates developing innovative solutions to support our customers who are using radioactive sources in the UAE and ensuring their happiness by supporting efficiency in their transactions with FANR," said its Director-General Christer Viktorsson.

 

"Both NuTech and Faras portals have been instrumental in achieving our goals towards excellence," stated Viktorsson.

 

NuTech portal, which was developed by FANR’s ICT experts and launched in 2018, is the first automated import and export control system for nuclear-related dual use items and aims to facilitate the businesses to import and export regulated items in the UAE. 

 

The portal seeks to prevent the diversion, misuse and illicit trafficking in nuclear equipment and technology, in line with the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. In the first quarter of 2020, it processed around 1,425 requests with over 95 percent of those requests where completed in one day or less, stated the top official.

 

The NuTech Portal conducted its first customer satisfaction survey earlier this year and received a rate of 88 percent from licensees due to its efficiency and fast turnaround time, he added.-

Source:TradeArabia News Service

Data security keeping IT experts up at night

As businesses across the UAE speed up their digitalisation drive and make the transition to online, as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, IT departments have expressed their concerns about data security and the threat of cyberattacks.

Speaking to Khaleej Times, Dragan Petkovic, Security and Systems Management at Oracle EMEA region, said that the world is experiencing an unprecedented crisis that is disrupting supply chains and upending economies.

"The new reality is accelerating transformation at a never before seen pace," he said. "Working from home is the new normal, and its effectiveness has clearly been proven. There is little doubt that this trend is likely to continue. Major analysts share consensus that between 5-20 per cent of the office-based positions will continue to work remotely at 74 per cent of the organisations."

The public cloud, he said, is an obvious choice for flexible workforce enablement, and digitalization in general, and should be the first choice. Public clouds are home to some of the world's most critical information and applications from citizen and health data, to military intelligence, payroll processing, and everything in between. The public cloud has proven a worthy alternative to private data centers by offering high resilience to threats and rapid security incident recovery. Still, not all public cloud providers are the same with respect to expertise or built-in security.

"We have witnessed a massive collection of sensitive personal data," said Petkovic. "Assuming processing has means and purpose, it is crucial to secure this data. The first recommendation is consolidation; it is much safer to store data regardless of the type in one place. It is easier to apply database security controls, which is the second recommendation. The encryption of data is a bare minimum. Sensitive personal data should be pseudonymized where possible, particularly when used for statistical analysis. Data access should be restricted, and access should be comprehensively audited."

According to the third-annual Oracle and KPMG Cloud Threat Report 2020, IT professionals are three times more concerned about the security of company financials and intellectual property than their home security. In addition, 75 per cent of IT professionals view the public cloud as more secure than their own data centers, yet 92 per cent do not trust that their organisation is well prepared to secure public cloud services. Nearly 80 per cent of IT professionals say that recent data breaches experienced by other businesses have increased their organization's focus on securing data moving forward.

"In response to the current challenging environment, companies have accelerated the movement of workloads, and associated sensitive data, to the cloud to support a new way of working, and to help optimise cost models. This is exposing existing vulnerabilities and creating new risks," said Tony Buffomante, Global co-leader of KPMG's Cyber Security Services. "To be able to manage that increased threat level in this new reality, it is essential that chief information security officers build security into the design of cloud migration and implementation strategies, staying in regular communication with the business."
source:khaleejtimes

Google countersues Sonos, adds fuel to intellectual property feud

Sonos made quite a splash in January when it sued Google for allegedly stealing its intellectual property. Now, Google is returning the favor.

The tech giant has countersued Sonos, alleging that the whole-house audio company infringed on five different Google patents. These patents include mesh networking, echo cancellation, DRM, content notifications, and personalized search.

In its initial lawsuit, Sonos claimed that during the time it had been partnered with Google to bring Google Play Music and Google Assistant to the platform, Google allegedly gathered knowledge about Sonos’ wireless audio system that it then used to create its own line of multiroom speakers.

Google does sell several smart wireless speakers, including the Google Nest Mini, Google Home, and Google Home Max, but Google disputed the claims at the time and told Digital Trends that it “will defend them vigorously.”

Enter Google’s countersuit. In a statement to Digital Trends, Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said that the company is “disappointed that Sonos has made false claims about our work together and technology.”

“We are reluctantly defending ourselves by asserting our patent rights,” Castaneda said. “While we look to resolve our dispute, we will continue to ensure our shared customers have the best experience using our products.”

Google traditionally has shied away from filing lawsuits in the past. For it to take this kind of legal action, especially against a partner like Sonos, is somewhat unprecedented. But according to portions of the complaint shared with Digital Trends, Google believes there’s merit in taking these steps.

“Google is proud of its more than five-year partnership with Sonos and has worked constructively with Sonos to make the companies’ products work seamlessly by building special integrations for Sonos. For instance, when Google rolled out the ability to set a Sonos speaker as the default option for Google Assistant, it was the first time Google had done that for any partner company. Sonos has made false claims about the companies’ shared work and Google’s technology in the lawsuits that Sonos filed against Google earlier this year. While Google rarely sues other companies for patent infringement, it must assert its intellectual property rights here.

SOURCE:digitaltrends

Prosecutors call on public not to misuse UAE currency

The UAE Public Prosecution has called on all members of the public to abide by laws and not to underestimate the national currency in any way whatsoever.

“The national currency carries the name and emblem of the UAE; hence the moral value is greater than its material value, and any behaviour that is deemed an insult to the currency is a crime punishable by the UAE law,” the Public Prosecution said.

Through a video clip published on its social media platforms, the Public Prosecution affirmed that whoever, publicly and intentionally mutilates, destroys or tears up currency, shall be punished by a fine, which shall be the greater of one thousand Dirham (Dh1,000) and 10 times the value of the currency mutilated, destroyed or torn, according to Article (141) of Federal Law No. (14) of 2018 Regarding the Central Bank and Organisation of Financial Institutions and Activities.

It urged all social media users to have a sense of responsibility before publishing materials and videos on their accounts.

“The UAE laws and legislations have criminalised all practices and acts that violate public morals or underestimate the emblem of the state along with its national currency. According to Article 176 (bis) of the Penal Code Federal, anyone who insults, mocks, harms the reputation, prestige or statute of the state, its flag, its emblem, its symbols or any of its institutions shall be punished with a minimum period of 10 years and a maximum of 25 years and a fine of no less than Dh500,000,” the Public Prosecution clarified.

It affirmed that publishing such these footages on information technology means or social media platforms is a crime citing article 29 of Federal Decree-Law No. (5) of 2012 on Combating Cybercrimes.

According to this article, whoever publishes information, news, statements or rumours on a website or any computer network or information technology means with intent to make sarcasm or damage the reputation, prestige or stature of the State or any of its institutions or its president, vice-president, any of the rulers of the Emirates, their crown princes, or the deputy rulers of the Emirates, the State flag, the national peace, its logo, national anthem or any of its symbols, shall be punished by temporary imprisonment and a fine not in excess of one million dirhams.

This comes after the UAE Public Prosecution has noticed some video clips on social media filming the national currency in abusive manner. Many reports about such videos were also received through ‘My Safe Society’ app.

The videos included footages of persons dealing the national currency inappropriately. These are punishable and illegal acts that constitute a misuse and a contempt of the currency, which carries the emblem of the state.

Britain briefly suspends sending evidence to U.S. law enforcement, in move some see as a sign of fraying relationship

British authorities earlier this month told their American counterparts that they had suspended sending over all evidence in criminal cases because the United States still uses the death penalty — a move some American law enforcement officials feared might signal a fraying relationship over several politically charged matters, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The United Kingdom’s Central Authority delivered the message on June 4 as part of communications over a visa fraud case in which the United States wanted assistance, saying it had “paused transmission of all evidence to all countries that maintain the death penalty on their statute books.”

The message pointed to a March decision from the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court, which declared that it was unlawful for British authorities to have cooperated with the United States in a high-profile terrorism case without first being assured that the men would not face the death penalty.

“Unfortunately because the U.S. maintains the death penalty on its statute books, this decision affects you,” the Central Authority wrote in a message, the contents of which were read to The Washington Post. “The U.S. is not, however, the only country affected by this pause, and the UKCA is mindful of the impact the decision to pause transmission might have on some proceedings. … Our policy colleagues are working through the implications, and we hope to be in a position to reconsider the transmission to third countries in cases where the death penalty is not the maximum sentence possible in due course.”

A spokesperson for the British Home Office said in an email, “The UK continues to process and cooperate with Mutual Legal Assistance Requests,” suggesting that whatever pause there had been, it was now lifted, at least in some measure.

Two U.S. Justice Department officials said, though, that the timing — more than two months after the Supreme Court decision was issued — was curious, and they worried about a possible ulterior motive.

The United States and the United Kingdom are mired in a number of politically charged legal cases in which each is seeking the other’s help — to little avail. Most notably, in April, the Justice Department made a formal, Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request to speak with Britain’s Prince Andrew as part of its investigation into the sexual abuse of minors by now-deceased multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein, the two Justice Department officials said.

Andrew has said he is willing to cooperate. But U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, whose office in Manhattan is handling the Epstein investigation, has publicly disputed that, declaring at a March news conference that the prince had instead “shut the door” on helping.

A senior Justice Department official — speaking on the condition of anonymity like others in this story because of the matter’s political and legal sensitivity — said some feared the U.K.’s decision to broadly pause transmitting of evidence in response to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty requests might be connected to the dispute over the prince. A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, also known by the acronym MLAT, governs how countries share information and cooperate in law enforcement matters.

British officials, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, disputed that the pause was connected to the recent dust-up over Andrew, saying it was instead because of the Supreme Court ruling in March and concerns over the death penalty in the United States.

A third senior Justice Department official said that in the period since the ruling, the Justice Department and the British Home Office “have been in discussions regarding the data protection implications of that decision. Any temporary pause in mutual legal assistance must be understood in that context.”

The public squabbling over Andrew significantly intensified this week. After the Sun newspaper and others reported on the Justice Department’s MLAT request for his cooperation, the law firm representing Andrew, Blackfords LLP, issued a statement taking aim at Berman for his public statements. The firm claimed that the prince had “on at least three occasions this year offered his assistance as a witness to the DOJ.”

source:washingtonpost

Intellectual Property firm AJ Park buys rival Baldwins for $7.9m

Intellectual property firm AJ Park is set to acquire rival Baldwins Intellectual Property for $7.9 million in one of the biggest deals in the IP space for some time.

The deal, which is conditional on Commerce Commission approval, was set to go ahead in March but was delayed while the businesses worked through the Covid-19 lock-down.

ASX-listed IPH Ltd, which owns AJ Park, said it would proceed in an announcement to the exchange today with completion expected in the third quarter of this year.

The $7.9m purchase price includes a deferred consideration of $400,000 with the initial amount paid 65 per cent in cash and 35 per cent in IPH shares. The deferred part of the settlement will also be paid in cash..

Andrea Dickens, AJ Park's managing director, said it was the largest player in the intellectual property space in New Zealand with Baldwins also in the top three.

She didn't anticipate there being any difficulties in getting the deal over the line with the competition regulator.

"We are very confident we will get Commerce Commission clearance."

She said the IP market had become increasingly competitive and fragmented over the last 10 years with Australian patent attorneys also able to file in New Zealand.

"So there will be plenty of competition."

Dickens said the deal had not come about because of the Covid-19 situation but had been delayed by it.

"We were very close to an announcement in March. We had to put everything on hold."

Under the agreement, Baldwins will join the AJ Park business and operate as one firm..

AJ Park employs 170 people in both Auckland and Wellington. While Baldwins has four partners as well as other IP staff working from both cities as well.

It clients include large multi-national corporations, universities, government agencies, start-ups and individual inventors.

Dickens said it would not be in any position to talk about organisational changes until it received Commerce Commission clearance.

She said the proposed acquisition would provide benefits for both businesses, their people and clients.

"Baldwins is a quality IP business with a highly qualified and experienced specialist IP team. We are delighted to have the opportunity to bring together the strengths of two New Zealand IP businesses as one combined firm under AJ Park.

"AJ Park clients will have access to a deeper pool of IP expertise and Baldwins' clients will benefit from access to AJ Park's larger IP team and direct access to the Asian market through the IPH group Asia business."

Baldwins' Chairman, Wes Jones said: "We believe this combination will allow us to best position our business for the future, both in New Zealand and internationally. As a combined firm we can provide enhanced career opportunities for our people and offer a strengthened client service capability including an enhanced international offering.

"We believe AJ Park is a good strategic fit for our business and, subject to clearance by the NZ Commerce Commission and completion of the transaction, we look forward to joining the firm later this year."