In a recent judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), in the case of Somesh Choudhary v Knight Riders Sports Private Limited & Anr¹, it was held that claims arising out of Intellectual Property Rights would come within the ambit of Section 5 (21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

A Manhattan federal jury ruled in favor of luxury brand Hermès in its trademark infringement lawsuit against an individual that created non-fungible tokens ("NFTs") depicting images resembling the famous Hermès Birkin handbag.

In late December, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in In re: Mallinckrodt PLC affirming the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy court's November 2021 decision that the debtor could discharge certain post-petition, post-confirmation royalty obligations for the sale of the company's Acthar gel.

The district court's affirmation serves as a reminder to holders of intellectual property that a debtor's fresh start under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code could trump royalty obligations that are found to be contingent claims arising as of the time of the transaction.

The Insolvency Practitioners Bill (‘the Bill’) is at its second reading in Parliament. The Bill is intended to partially transpose EU Directive 2019/1023 (‘the Directive’) on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt.

As the economic crisis continues to deepen, several of our contributors in South Europe have been focusing on matters relating to insolvency in the transport industry.

近年来，随着我国商标申请量逐年攀升，商标注册难度不断加大，当然市场上也存在大量“闲置”商标，随之连续三年不使用注册商标的撤销案件日益频发。

《商标法》第四十九条第二款规定：

“注册商标成为其核定使用的商品的通用名称或者没有正当理由连续三年不使用的，任何单位或者个人可以向商标局申请撤销该注册商标。”

一般情况下在撤三申请之前会重点关注商标注册人是否在近三年对注册商标进行真实有效的商业使用，而“正当理由”这一例外情形，需依据商标注册人具体情况而定，难以通过前期互联网查询等方式了解。

何种情况才属于连续三年不使用的“正当理由”呢？

《商标法实施条例》第六十七条规定：

“下列情形属于商标法第四十九条规定的正当理由:（一）不可抗力；（二）政府政策性限制；（三）破产清算；（四）其他不可归责于商标注册人的正当事由。”

最高人民法院2010《关于审理商标授权确权行政案件若干问题的意见》第二十条第三款规定：

“如果商标权人因不可抗力、政策性限制、破产清算等客观事由，未能实际使用注册商标或者停止使用，或者商标权人有真实使用商标的意图，并且有实际使用的必要准备，但因其他客观事由尚未实际使用注册商标的，均可认定有正当理由。”

The Supreme Court of Israel recently clarified the distinction between fixed and floating charges under Israeli law. While the decision of the Supreme Court did not specifically address charges on intellectual property, the tests set forth by the Supreme Court will likely affect the characterization of charges on such intangible assets under Israeli law. This decision takes on additional importance in the current economic climate, which may see more IP-rich companies in insolvency situations or looking to use their intellectual property assets to secure financing.

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) and the Outlook in India  

The U.S. is one of the easiest jurisdictions in the world in which to do business. Regulatory barriers are generally low, establishing a branch or business entity is quick and easy, labor and employment laws are much more employer-friendly than in most other developed economies, and the legal system is well-developed and transparent. However, there are certain barriers to entry and challenges to doing business that should be taken into account before investing or establishing operations in the U.S.

引言

在投融资实践中，一方面，部分掌握核心技术/知识产权（“IP”）的产业投资人、科研院所等出资人（“IP出资人”）在投资时，希望通过IP出资减轻自身的现金出资负担并增强目标公司的核心竞争力，实现共赢。如果出资标的是IP出资人的核心IP，IP出资人往往希望以IP使用权而非IP所有权作为出资，以保护自身利益。另一方面，相较于常见的现金出资，目标公司对IP使用权出资的了解更少，也存在些许疑问。

实践中，IP使用权出资是IP出资人和目标公司/创始人经常向我们咨询的“老话题”。IP使用权出资需要考虑诸多问题和潜在风险，我们在此进行简单介绍，希望为IP出资人和目标公司/创始人提供一些指引。

第一部分 结论