Category: Court Decisions

1
The Scotch Whisky Saga: Where Name and Reputation is not enough
2
Towards a Uniform Theory of Patent Law: The Federal Circuit Declines to Create Design-Patent-Specific Rules for Exhaustion or Repair
3
New USPTO Requirement: U.S. Licensed Attorney Representation for Foreign Trademark Applications and Registrations
4
Second update of PTAB Trial Practice Guide issued
5
New versions of iconic designs – Can they be protected under EU design law?
6
Bega claims the peanut butter throne in $60M war with Kraft Heinz
7
Fashion Law Update
8
Implementation of the EU “Trademark Package” in France
9
Webpage specimens not automatically use in commerce
10
U.S. Supreme Court Decides Two Copyright Cases and Impacts Registration Strategy for Copyright Owners

The Scotch Whisky Saga: Where Name and Reputation is not enough

William Grant & Sons, the distiller, blender and owner of Glenfiddich, the independent whisky company which markets itself as the “World’s Most Awarded Single Malt Scotch Whisky”, was unsuccessful in its recent opposition of Glenfield’s label trade mark application.

Back in 2018, Mumbai-based business man Vivek Anasane filed a trade mark application for the label of his ‘Glenfield’ Scotch whisky in an attempt to expand his drinks company into the UK. This was quickly opposed by William Grant & Sons who argued that the Glenfield mark was “visually and phonetically highly similar” to the Glenfiddich word mark.

Read More

Towards a Uniform Theory of Patent Law: The Federal Circuit Declines to Create Design-Patent-Specific Rules for Exhaustion or Repair

On Tuesday July 23, 2019, the Federal Circuit declined to fashion design-patent-specific doctrines of exhaustion or repair. Automotive Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Global Techs., LLC, Case No. 2018-1613, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2019).

Instead, the court reemphasized that the same rules apply to utility patents and to design patents unless otherwise provided by law. Id. Also concluding that “aesthetic appeal” is not functional, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Ford’s favor. Id. The decision is notable for its widening of the gap between trade dress and design patents and for its reaffirmation of the principle that design patents and utility patents should, whenever possible, receive identical treatment under the law.

Read More

New USPTO Requirement: U.S. Licensed Attorney Representation for Foreign Trademark Applications and Registrations

On Tuesday July 2, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued new Rules and Regulations under Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 2, 7, and 11. They take effect on Saturday August 3, 2019.

The impact of the rule, as implemented, is a new requirement for a licensed U.S. attorney to serve as counsel for applicants, registrants, or parties to a trademark proceeding whose domicile is not located within the United States (i.e. foreign applicants, registrants, or parties). Previously, a substantial number of such trademark applications had been filed without a U.S. attorney by applicants domiciled in other jurisdictions.

Read More

Second update of PTAB Trial Practice Guide issued

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a second update to its Trial Practice Guide, clarifying a number of logistical matters for practitioners and outlining the PTAB’s expectations and preferences for certain stages of the trial process.

Read More

New versions of iconic designs – Can they be protected under EU design law?

We all have memories associated with iconic (car) designs. It could be our grandparents’ car, the car we used to drive when we were younger or that cool model we could not afford as students. Car designs often become icons and reflect socio-economic status and, for this reason, the automotive industry often offers remakes of classic models, such as the new Fiat 500, the new Mini and, of course, the new Porsche 911.

What happens to the design protection for iconic cars when they form part of a new released model? These are the issues that were tested by Porsche in two recent cases decided by the EU General Court (decisions T-209/18 and T-210/18). The key question from an IP perspective was whether a design incorporating a remake has the requisite novelty and individual character and, thus, should be deemed valid.

Read More

Bega claims the peanut butter throne in $60M war with Kraft Heinz

What you need to know

  • Under Australian law, an entity can’t transfer an unregistered trade mark to another entity without also transferring its entire business.
  • To transfer a trade mark without transferring a business, the transferor first needs to register its trade mark.
  • Failing to register a valuable trade mark used in a business can have major unforeseen consequences in the context of M&A transactions, especially where the business is operated by a subsidiary in a corporate group.
Read More

Fashion Law Update

“Improvise. Become more creative. Not because you have to, but because you want to. Evolution is the secret for the next step.” Karl Lagerfeld

Our Fashion team has prepared the latest edition of Fashion Law where we provide you with the latest updates on legal issues affecting the fashion industry.

This edition covers:
• An update on Modern Slavery legislation
• Copyright infringement
• The benefits of design protection in an IP strategy
• A look at illegal phoenix activity.

Click here to read Fashion Law online.

By Jonathan Feder, Savannah Hardingham, Anna Smith, Simon Casinader, Olivia Coburn, Bianca D’Angelo and Paris Taylor

Implementation of the EU “Trademark Package” in France

Further to the adoption of the so-called Trademark Package at European level, comprised of Regulation no.2015/2424 (as codified by Regulation no.2017/1001 dated 14 June 2017) on EU Trademarks (the “Regulation”) and Directive no.2015/2436, harmonizing Member States’ trademark regime (the “Directive”), both dated 16 December 2015, France was due to update its internal regulatory framework.

The PACTE Act no. 2019-486, adopted on 22 May 2019, implemented the Trademark Package at long last. While the Regulation addressed EU aspects and is of direct enforcement within Member States, the Directive provided Member States with some leverage on the internal implementation.

These new aspects aim at simplifying the enforcement of intellectual property rights (“IPR”), for both trademarks and the patents, by creating administrative procedures, rather than having to introduce a judicial action before the courts.

Read More

Webpage specimens not automatically use in commerce

On April 10, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion, at the request of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), regarding submissions of webpages as specimens of use. In re Siny Corp is an important reminder to applicants and practitioners to carefully consider whether webpage specimens to be submitted to the USPTO actually comprise the offering of goods and/or services at the point of sale, or whether they are mere advertising.

Read More

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Two Copyright Cases and Impacts Registration Strategy for Copyright Owners

March 4, 2019, marked the first time in over 100 years that the Supreme Court of the United States issued two copyright decisions in the same day[1] – both unanimous and both strict interpretations of statutory language.  In the first of these two decisions, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com that copyright owners must obtain a registration from the U.S. Copyright Office prior to filing an infringement action.[2]  The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, resolved a long-standing circuit split on whether the “application approach” (merely filing a copyright application) or the “registration approach” (obtaining a copyright registration) is sufficient to file a copyright infringement suit under § 411(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976.  In the second decision, the Court in Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc. determined that “full costs” under § 505 of the Copyright Act did not authorize awarding litigation expenses beyond those specified in the general costs statute.

Read More

Copyright © 2019, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.