March 2025 – IP Law Watch

Make Protecting Your UK and EU Product Packaging and Labels Your New Year’s IP Resolution. Part 2: Combatting Dupes and Copycats in the United Kingdom

Mar 17 2025

By: Arthur Artinian, Simon Casinader, and Georgina Rigg

Everybody knows that trade marks are necessary to protect a brand’s logo and name, and a lot of people know that registered designs are a powerful tool in stopping counterfeit goods, but did you know these rights can also be used to help protect against unwanted “dupes” (also known as “copycat” or “lookalike” products)? Dupes and copycats deliberately mimic a successful product, and they imitate the look and feel to unfairly benefit from the goodwill attached to the product through the “halo effect,” i.e., the impression that if it looks like the original, it must be as good.

No Copyright Protection for Birkenstock Sandals: A Significant Decision from the German Federal Court of Justice

Mar 11 2025

On 20 February 2025, the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) delivered a landmark ruling in a case concerning the copyright protection of Birkenstock sandals. In its decision, the BGH firmly rejected the claim that Birkenstock’s sandal designs qualify for copyright as “applied art” under German copyright law. This judgment not only clarifies the scope of protection for industrial design works but also contrasts with prior rulings from regional courts in Hamburg and Cologne, highlighting the challenges of determining what constitutes “creative” or “artistic” design in functional products.

Unified Patent Court Publishes First Annual Report

Mar 10 2025

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the Unitary Patent, which launched on 1 June 2023, marked a historic milestone, allowing for the enforcement of patents across borders via a single court. The UPC has now issued its first Annual Report.

Federal Circuit Broadens ITC Economic Prong

Mar 06 2025

In the recent decision of Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the long-standing approach concerning the interpretation of the domestic-industry requirement under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complainant, an American company importing eyelash extensions from international manufacturers, which alleged that certain other importers were infringing on its patents.

Archive:March 2025