IP Law Watch – Page 48 – Legal issues, law and regulations concerning the world of IP

Louboutin Succeeds Again in Long Standing European Union Trade Mark Opposition Over Red Sole

Jul 29 2015

Christian Louboutin (Louboutin) has again been successful in a long running opposition proceeding filed by Roland SE (Roland) against its red sole trade mark in the European Union.

Louboutin has faced legal challenges around the world in registering and enforcing its signature red sole on its shoes. In 2010, Louboutin filed a Community Trade Mark application for the below trade mark in class 25 for “high-heeled shoes (except orthopaedic footwear)” (Louboutin Mark):
shoe

(Louboutin Mark)

Fashion Designer Tory Burch Awarded US$41 million in U.S. Trade Mark Case

Jul 27 2015

In November 2013, fashion designer Tory Burch sued Youngran Kim, and three companies controlled by Kim, for counterfeiting and trade mark infringement relating to the sale of jewellery. The jewellery featured a registered logo trade mark design owned by Tory Burch. While this was not the basis of Tory Burch’s legal claim, it is worth noting that, as well as featuring Tory Burch’s logo device, the defendants’ jewellery also closely resembled jewellery designs that had been released by Tory Burch, as seen below.

BPCIA Statute: Patent Dance Is Optional, But Opting Out Has Consequences

Jul 24 2015

The Federal Circuit issued a ruling on July 21, 2015 in the Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc., Case No. 2015-1499, appeal after hearing oral arguments on June 3, 2015. See BPCIA: A “Choose Your Own Adventure” Statute? (describing the parties’ oral arguments before the Federal Circuit). Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) appealed the Northern District of California’s decision holding that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act’s (“BPCIA’s”) “patent dance” provisions are optional and that the 180-day notice provision does not require licensure. See Dancing Not Required: District Court Denies Amgen’s Bid for Preliminary Injunction, Finds BPCIA “Patent Dance” Optional.

To read the full alert, click here.

Designing Fashion: How to be Inspired Not to Copy

Jul 22 2015

Earlier this year, K&L Gates hosted its annual Fashion Law Breakfast in conjunction with the Virgin Australia Melbourne Fashion Festival. A fantastic panel of both fashion and legal experts divulged tips on inspiring creativity in the fashion industry and combating copyists.

Following trend forecasts and drawing inspiration from the catwalks overseas is nothing new or particularly sinister. However, there is a clear distinction between drawing inspiration and copying.

Fashion brands need to have a culture that sets clear expectations when it comes to drawing the line between inspiration and copying. Creating something new and innovative needs to be part of a fashion brand’s modus operandi. Junior designers with their fresh approach and cutting edge design skills should be encouraged to work on hero collection pieces.

Parody Marks, Reputation and ‘Misleading and Deceptive Conduct’ in Australia

Jul 21 2015

In May 2013, Catchoftheday.com.au Pty Ltd applied to register the following marks:

BP 2 BP1

Target Australia Pty Ltd (Target), a well known Australian retailer, opposed registration of the marks. It argued that under section 42(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), use of the Trade Marks would be contrary to law.

Connecticut Mandates Identity Theft Services for Social Security Number Data Breaches

Jul 07 2015

On June 30, 2015, Connecticut’s governor signed into law an amendment to the state’s data-security-breach-notice statute to mandate ‘appropriate’ identity theft prevention services for breaches involving social security numbers. Identity theft mitigation services are also required ‘if applicable’, e.g., if identify theft actually occurs. The services must be provided at no cost and for at least 12 months. The statute does not explain which identity theft ‘prevention’ or ‘mitigation’ services are mandated or which are ‘appropriate.’

New OHIM Registry Practice for Community Trade Marks

Jun 26 2015

Nice Class Headings

If your international brand portfolio includes Community trade marks (CTMs) which were filed prior to 22 June 2012, you should be carefully reviewing your portfolio in light of changes expected to come into force under the draft Community Trade Mark Regulation (Regulation), a revised draft of which was released last week.

International brand owners will be familiar with the classification system under the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services. The system consists of 34 classes of goods and 11 classes of services, explanatory notes and an alphabetical list of goods and services. The class headings provide a general indication of the fields to which the goods and services in each class belong.

The Name Game: AbbVie’s Citizen Petition Regarding Biosimilar Labeling

Jun 22 2015

On June 2, 2015, AbbVie submitted a citizen petition to the FDA arguing against its interim labeling requirements for biosimilar products under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). As of now, the FDA has adopted the same labeling approach as used for generic pharmaceutical drugs. However, AbbVie argues in its petition that “[b]iosimilars are not generic drugs and should not be labeled like generic drugs.”

To read the full alert, click here.

EU Data Protection Regulation

Jun 18 2015

On 15 June 2015 the European Council published its final proposed text for the new General Data Protection Regulation. The Regulation is being adopted to provide legal certainty and transparency for businesses and to provide individuals with the same level of rights and obligations in all EU Member States.

To read the full alert, click here.

BPCIA: A “Choose Your Own Adventure” Statute?

Jun 17 2015

On June 3, 2015, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument on Amgen Inc.’s (“Amgen”) appeal of the Northern District of California’s decision holding that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act’s (“BPCIA’s”) “patent dance” provisions are optional, and that the 180-day notice provision does not require licensure in Amgen, Inc., et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-04741-RS (N.D. Cal. March 19, 2015).

To read the full alert, click here.