In September 2020 the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate jointly promulgated Interpretation III on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of the Law in Handling Intellectual Property Criminal Cases. The judicial interpretation aims to reduce IP rights crimes and create a business-friendly environment by establishing unified standards in the application of the law in this regard.
Introduction
Insurance applications can be challenging. The questions are often ambiguous and remembering every piece of relevant information is difficult. However, being diligent is important, as an insurer may deny coverage of a claim if an insured incorrectly answered a question or failed to disclose material information. On the other hand, insureds should be aware that the courts will scrutinise claims of inadequate disclosure on a reasonableness basis. Typically, insurers cannot rely on answers to ambiguous questions in application materials unless the nature of the risks that those questions sought to elicit is obvious or was brought to the insured s attention.
forum non conveniens applied.
Forum for administration clause
Kawaley J agreed that the nature or legal character of the dispute is relevant (applying the decision of
Crociani v Crociani
(7)) in deciding whether a jurisdiction clause in a trust deed applies:
The question of whether a forum for administration clause, irrespective of whether it is expressed to be exclusive or not, confers exclusive jurisdiction on the relevant court is an arid debate if the context in which the question arises is not taken into account.
The court found that, on the facts of the present case, the trustee would not be entitled to rely on the forum clause given that the claim in question was not brought by someone claiming under the trust, but rather as someone challenging its validity.
Introduction
Article 40 of the Plant Variety and Plant Seed Act provides that plant variety rights holders or exclusive licensees may:
request the cessation of any infringement
request the prevention of any threat of infringement; and
claim damages against any parties that intentionally or negligently infringe on their plant variety rights.
Facts
On 24 September 2020 the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court (IPC) rendered a civil judgment (
2020 Min Zhi Shang Zi 1) that specifically indicates how to determine whether an allegedly infringing plant is an infringing variety.
The plaintiff, a floral company, claimed that the defendant, a floral supplier, had planted the plaintiff s Advance+ (Lexjori) rose plants without a licence. The plaintiff further claimed that the plants had been sold on the market by another defendant, a floral company, under the name Avalanche , and that the defendants had therefore jointly infringed the plant variety rights of the Advance+ (Lexjori) roses.
AirAsia X Berhad v BOC Aviation Limited (Originating Summons WA-24NCC-467-10/2020).
Summary
On 19 February 2021 Judicial Commissioner Ong Chee Kwan allowed AirAsia X (AAX) Berhad s application under Section 366 of the Companies Act 2016 for leave to convene creditors meetings to consider and approve an arrangement scheme. However, the judge disagreed with AAX s division of the scheme creditors into two classes:
Class A – secured creditors; and
Class B – unsecured creditors.
The judge agreed with the submissions from the counsel for Malaysia Airports and the counsel for the lessors and held that:
the lessors of lease agreements with AAX must be treated as unsecured creditors and placed in Class B; and