The EU Intellectual Property Office rejected a patent application for the plastic clog brand in 2016. EU rules state that a patent cannot be provided if the design has been made public for more than a year before the application has been submitted.

Crocs first made its public appearance in 2002 at a Florida boat show; it then applied for legal protection in 2004. A French retailer argued against the global brand from obtaining a patent as anyone “could have accessed the design”.

A spokesperson from the law firm Gowling WLG, says the case should be a reminder to designers to apply for legal protection early in terms of their products. The brand has both its critics and advocates. It was named in 2010 as one the world’s worst inventions, yet is sported by the likes of Michelle Obama and Prince George.

Current legal issues are discussed in the Thailand Family Law Center by Thailand family lawyers.   

Read the full story here

Related Articles:
Patent Act

Image: Colorful Crocs

 Two US Supreme Court decisions concerning DNA and genes have created debate.

The US Supreme Court in Maryland v. King, has held that collecting the DNA of detainees who are not convicted is constitutional.

US Police departments have been collecting a “DNA database” of arrestees, suspects, and persons of interest for probably longer than we know. Is is known that the police force witnesses to provide DNA to prove their innocence or file felony charges and then offer plea bargains to defendants in exchange for their genetic information.

Thailand Patent Lawyer

In Association for Molecular Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, the US Supreme Court debated whether genes could be patented and sat somewhat on the fence deciding: you can’t if they are naturally occurring, and the gene was only “discovered”; however an invented synthetic gene, can be patented.

And with that, we offer you this thought: if police obtain DNA from a suspect who has been treated with a patented synthetic DNA, is the police seizure of that DNA a violation of the proprietary rights of the patentee company?  In other words, can the arrestee object to the DNA test as not having authority to surrender the DNA because of non-ownership?

Related Articles: The Idea of Software Patent Protections