Tag: EU

1
Bronze, Shape, Glow: A copyright tale destined for Broadway
2
Producers of generic medicines and biosimilars even more supported by EU
3
Implementation of the EU “Trademark Package” in France
4
If the purple colour may not be subject to the effect of time, trade marks certainly are
5
A successful year for trade marks and designs worldwide
6
EU case recap: A dispute over registration of the mark “Dricloud” (Massive Bionics, SL vs Apple Inc.)
7
When recording also means communication to the public – interaction between copyright and cloud-based video recording services
8
EU: The obligation to translate in a motion for invalidation (Mediaexpert v EUIPO)
9
The descriptive character of the two-letter trademark “QD” (LG Electronics) – Ruling of the EU General Court in Case T-650/16
10
Ferrari “Testarossa” – The great importance for trademark owners of making proper use of trademarks

Bronze, Shape, Glow: A copyright tale destined for Broadway

Stores like Aldi are increasingly popular with UK consumers as a result of offering “copycat” products of well-known brands at drastically lower prices. However, with this rise in popularity, brand owners and creatives are being increasingly frustrated by finding their products and ideas at the mercy of imitation products.

One such aggrieved party was well known makeup brand Charlotte Tilbury (Tilbury), who found their “Starburst” lid design and the “Powder Design” of their “Filmstar Bronze and Glow” set had provided the ‘inspiration’ for Aldi’s own “Broadway Shape and Glow” set. Tilbury filled a UK High Court claim for copyright infringement over the products shown below, with Aldi adamantly rejecting that any copyright had been infringed in their ‘inspired’ makeup set.

Read More

Producers of generic medicines and biosimilars even more supported by EU

Effective 1 July 2019, the EU adopted a regulation by introducing a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) manufacturing and stockpiling waiver. This waiver also applies for biosimilar versions of SPC-protected medicine during the term of the SPC.

Read More

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

If the purple colour may not be subject to the effect of time, trade marks certainly are

When it comes to non-traditional trade marks in the EU, the requirement of a clear and precise description can be quite complex to put into practice, as demonstrated in the recent UK Court of Appeal decision in Cadbury v The Comptroller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks.

In 2013, in Cadbury v Nestle, the Court of Appeal held that the graphic representation and the description of the purple mark did not constitute a sign within section 1 of the Trade Marks Act but rather an attempt to register multiple signs with different permutations, presentations and appearances, which are neither graphically represented nor described with any precision.

As a result, Cadbury attempted to amend the (same) description of another of its colour marks, registered in 1998 and now at risk of invalidity as a consequence of the Cadbury v Nestle decision. However, both the Comptroller and the High Court denied Cadbury’s request to amend the mark description.

Read More

EU case recap: A dispute over registration of the mark “Dricloud” (Massive Bionics, SL vs Apple Inc.)

On 14 July 2017, the EU General Court issued a ruling in case T-223/16 between Massive Bionics SL and Apple Inc. and the EUIPO concerning the registration.  In the end, the General Court also found that the Board of Appeal had rightly found that the marks are similar. The matter was based on the following trademark:

On 9 April 2013, Massive Bionics SL submitted an application for the registration of the trademark in classes 35, 42 and 44, against which registration Apple Inc. filed an opposition based on:

the word mark “iCloud” and the following word-figurative and figurative marks:
– the international word mark “iCloud”, designated in Cyprus in classes 9, 35, 38, 42 and 45
– the following EU figurative trademarks registered in classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42:

The Opposition Division of the EUIPO dismissed the opposition in its entirety, and Apple Inc. appealed. The Board of Appeal amended the decision of the Opposition Division of the EUIPO within the scope of all services from class 35 and certain services from class 42.

Read More

When recording also means communication to the public – interaction between copyright and cloud-based video recording services

On 29 November 2017, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) released its judgment in response to a reference from an Italian court relating to cloud recording and computing services provided by VCAST Limited (VCAST). The services enabled VCAST’s customers to select live broadcasts of television programmes that VCAST then remotely, through its own systems, recorded and made available in a cloud data storage space. The Italian court asked whether VCAST could provide this service without the permission from the owner of the copyright over the programme, with a specific query as to the application of the private copying exception provided in Article 5(2)(b) of the Information Society Directive (2001/29/EC) (InfoSoc Directive).

Read More

EU: The obligation to translate in a motion for invalidation (Mediaexpert v EUIPO)

On 20 March 2013, the company Mediaexpert S.A. submitted the following word-figurative EU trademark to the EUIPO:

for the following services in classes 35, 39 and 41:

  • 35: Business management; business administration;
  • 39: Transport; packaging and storing of goods;
  • 41: Education; providing training; sports;

and the trademark was registered on 5 March 2014 under number 11674132 for all the services submitted.

On 22 May 2014, the company Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. applied for invalidation of the mark, citing an earlier protection right to a domestic, word-figurative trademark registered on 26 February 2010 under number R.226812 in the form:

for goods and services from classes 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20, 35, 39, 41 and 42.

Together with the motion for invalidation, the applicant attached a printout from the Polish Patent Office database and a list of goods and services in the Polish language, without a translation into English, which was the language of the proceeding for invalidation.

Fast forward to a ruling of 20 July 2017, the court dismissed the complaint by the applicant, that there had been a breach of the principle of the protection of justified expectations, and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Read More

The descriptive character of the two-letter trademark “QD” (LG Electronics) – Ruling of the EU General Court in Case T-650/16

On 12 January 2015, the company LG Electronics Inc. submitted the mark “QD” to the EUIPO. The application was made for: “television receivers; mobile phone; smartphones; tablet computers; computers; sound recording devices; image recording devices; sound transmission devices; image transmission devices; sound playback devices; image reproduction devices; software; software for interactive television; communications software; computer software” belonging to class 9 of the Nice Classification.

In a decision of 19 August 2015, the application for registration of the mark was dismissed in relation to all goods, on the basis of Article 7 par. 1b) and c) of Regulation No. 207/2009 due to the absence of any distinctiveness of the sign and given that the mark consists solely of a descriptive element in relation to the goods for which it was submitted.

LG Electronics Inc. disagreed with that decision and lodged an appeal with the EUIPO on 9 October 2015. Subsequently, in a decision of 24 May 2016, the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO dismissed the appeal, ruling that the word mark “QD” is descriptive for the goods the submission referred to.

Read More

Ferrari “Testarossa” – The great importance for trademark owners of making proper use of trademarks

The Düsseldorf first instance district court decided that the trademark of Ferrari has to be cancelled (Decision as of 2 August 2017 – Case no. 2a O 166/16 – juris). However, the decision in not yet final.

Read More

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