No Copyright Protection for Birkenstock Sandals: A Significant Decision from the German Federal Court of Justice
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.
Read MoreFederal Circuit Broadens ITC Economic Prong
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.
Read MoreWhen Life Gives You Lemons….Thatchers Successful as Court of Appeal Finds Aldi Copycat Products Amount to Trade Mark Infringement in the United Kingdom
On 20 January 2025, the English Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in a highly anticipated appeal by Thatchers Cider Company, concluding that Aldi had infringed Thatchers’ registered trade mark under section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, by taking unfair advantage of Thatchers’ packaging trade mark (see comparison below).
You’re Gonna Hear Me Roar: Katy Perry Wins Appeal Against Local Australian Fashion Designer
In the long-running trade mark dispute between international popstar Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Taylor, the Full Federal Court has overturned the first instance decision of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5) [2023] FCA 364 and ordered that Taylor’s trade mark be cancelled.
Read MoreSkyKick v Sky: A Debrief of the Latest Developments
The UK Supreme Court recently handed down its judgment in the long-running SkyKick v Sky trade mark battle. The court considered the key issue of ‘bad faith’ applied to the over-claiming practice and its implications for trade mark infringement matters.
Read MoreCan Industrial Designs Be Protected by Copyright in the United Kingdom? The WaterRower is Not Protected by Copyright in the United Kingdom
Earlier this week, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) handed down the long-awaited decision in the WaterRower v Liking [2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC) case. It is seen as a key judgement exploring the boundaries of copyright protection in the United Kingdom.
Read MoreFederal Circuit Confirms Application of the Pre-AIA on-Sale bar to AIA Patents
On August 12, 2024, the United States Federal Circuit held that the enactment of the America Invents Act did not constitute a foundational change in the on-sale bar provision under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), finding the sale of products made using a secret process triggers the on-sale bar under pre-AIA precedent.1 The Court therefore affirmed the International Trade Commission’s invalidation of Celanese’s patents because Celanese sold products made using the patented process more than one year before the effective filing dates.2
Read MoreFederal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Estoppel Provision and Provides Guidance on “Patentably Distinct” Claims
On 26 July 2024, the Federal Circuit entered its decision in SoftView LLC, v. Apple Inc.1 holding that patent owner estoppel2 applies to newly presented and amended claims, but does not apply to issued claims. The Federal Circuit also confirmed that patent owner estoppel prevents a patent applicant from later obtaining a patent claim that is “not patentably distinct” from a finally refused or cancelled claim, but that patent owner estoppel does not apply to defending issued, unamended claims.
Read MoreUS$18.3 million Wearable Blanket Infringement Award Stands Despite Newly Announced Design Patent Standard
An Arizona federal judge denied Top Brand LLC’s motion for a new trial following an US$18.3 million jury award to Cozy Comfort Co. for infringement of two Cozy Comfort design patents and the “Comfy” trademarks used in connection with “The Comfy” hooded wearable blanket, which was featured on the television program “Shark Tank”.
Read More