Tag: France

Air France restrained from using song that infringes “Love Is In The Air”
We have a decision in the Sky v SkyKick case… and the long-awaited CJEU’s decision is good news for brand owners!
‘High’ expectations for Cannabis trade mark ‘hash’ed – Is EU trade mark law ready for Cannabis(TM)?
Sky v Skykick AG – is this the end of a claim for “computer software?”
Implementation of the EU “Trademark Package” in France
Getting closer to put the UPC into force
FR: Will the misleading use of a geographical indication for handicraft products be deemed counterfeiting? The “Laguiole” case

Air France restrained from using song that infringes “Love Is In The Air”

In April, we wrote about the judgement Boomerang Investments Pty Ltd v Padgett (Liability) [2020] FCA 535 (Decision), in which Glass Candy and Air France were found to have infringed the copyright in the well-known 1970s hit song “Love is in the Air” (Love).

Now, in the recent judgement Boomerang Investments Pty Ltd v Padgett (Scope of Injunction) [2020] FCA 1413, the Federal Court of Australia has finalised the injunctive orders necessary to give effect to the Court’s earlier conclusions on the issue of liability in the Decision, amongst other matters.

Injunctive Relief
Principally, Justice Perram addressed the appropriate injunctive relief against Air France in relation to its use of the adaptation of the infringing song “Warm in Winter” (Warm) called “France is in the Air” (France).

Air France contented that the injunction should only go as far as preventing the act of infringement which it was found to have committed, being the use of France as hold music for callers to its Australian toll-free number. However, Justice Perram agreed with the applicants that a wider injunction to restrain Air France from communicating France to the public without the licence of the copyright owner was appropriate.

This would encompass:

  • allowing France to be played on Air France’s YouTube channel (or other such channels) if the licensing arrangement with APRA was altered in the future such that ‘infringing uses’ of Love were no longer covered by the APRA licence
  • further efforts by Air France to use France on services which do not hold an APRA licence, and
  • the authorisation by Glass Candy of any such conduct.

Justice Perram ruled that a wide injunction was appropriate, as there was risk of Air France repeating the infringing behavior which, absent the licence of the copyright owner, ought to be restrained. This was especially so due to the fact that Air France had declined to undertake not to continue using France, leaving open the possibility for Air France entering into a fresh licence agreement for the use of France with Glass Candy and recommencing its ad campaign.

It was decided that the injunction would refer to the ‘copyright owner’ rather than a specific party, to account for any future ownership changes.

Declaration of flagrancy
Justice Perram held that it would be inappropriate to make a declaration regarding the flagrancy of Air France and Glass Candy’s conduct, since:

  • the various factors for assessing additional damages set out in s 115(4)(b) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), which includes the flagrancy of the infringement, were neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for the award of additional damages. Rather, these factors, like any finding of flagrancy, are intermediate steps along the way to another legal conclusion, and
  • the claim for damages against Air France failed as the owner of the communication right comprised in the right to digitally stream Love was incorrectly identified by the applicants (as detailed in the Decision).

Assessment of additional damages
Glass Candy submitted that the Court should not proceed to any assessment of additional damages since the conduct found to be flagrant in the Decision related to the creation of Warm and not the infringements that the Court found Glass Candy committed (which mainly related to the exercise of the communication right in Love). Justice Perram acknowledged that there might be some force in these submissions, but that the additional damages case should proceed.

Key takeaways
While the Court found a broad injunction to prevent the widespread communication of a musical work was appropriate in this case, a declaration of flagrancy was not.

Further developments will be reported once damages are assessed.

By Chris Round, Bianca D’Angelo and Talia Le Couteur Scott

We have a decision in the Sky v SkyKick case… and the long-awaited CJEU’s decision is good news for brand owners!

On 29 January 2020 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed its decision in the referral from the English High Court in the Sky v SkyKick case. We have previously covered this case and its importance for EU and UK trade mark law (including with our summary of the opinion issued by Advocate General Tanchev, which can be seen here).

The CJEU’s ruling provides good news for trade mark owners as it largely maintains the status quo for EU and UK trade mark law, departing from the AG’s Opinion in a number of important ways.

Read More

‘High’ expectations for Cannabis trade mark ‘hash’ed – Is EU trade mark law ready for Cannabis(TM)?

The EU General Court has rejected a trade mark application which featured the word ‘Cannabis’ together with images of cannabis leaves as it was contrary to public policy.

Read More

Sky v Skykick AG – is this the end of a claim for “computer software?”

On 16 October 2019, Advocate General Tanchev of the CJEU has issued his opinion in Sky v SkyKick one of the most intriguing trade mark cases at the moment which will likely have a significant impact on EU trade mark law. Crucially the AG has advised that:

  1. “registration of a trade mark for ‘computer software’ is unjustified and contrary to the public interest” because it confers on the proprietor a “monopoly of immense breadth which cannot be justified”, and it lacks sufficient clarity and precision; and
  2. trade mark registrations made with no intention to use, in relation to the specified goods and services, may constitute bad faith.
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

Getting closer to put the UPC into force

April 26, 2018 is a remarkable date: first it’s World IP Day celebrating IP around the world. Second, and this is unique, the British IP Minister Sam Gyimah MP announced that the UK ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPC Agreement). By doing so the UK agreed to be bound to both the UPC agreement and the UPC’s Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI). The UPC will be a court common to the contracting member states within the EU having exclusive competence in respect of European Patents and European Patents with unitary effect.

Read More

FR: Will the misleading use of a geographical indication for handicraft products be deemed counterfeiting? The “Laguiole” case

As stated in a previous article published in the Trademark and Unfair Competition Bulletin (page 11) , the Act no. 2014–344 on consumer protection, named the “Hamon Act” and dated 17 March 2014, created a new industrial property right: the “Geographical Indications protecting Industrial Products and Crafts” (or “Indications Géographiques protégeant les Produits Industriels et Artisanaux”, hereinater, “IGPIA”) in order to include industrial and handicraft products in the scope of the protection of geographical indications.

In the same article, the authors highlighted the fact that prior to the implementation of the aforementioned provision, there was a lack of protection since a third party could use the name of a famous place or city and register it as a trademark to misleadingly sell handicraft products under that name.

Introduction to the Laguiole case

A famous example was the “Laguiole cutlery” case where a third party, among others, was using the famous French city name of “Laguiole” as a trademark to flood the market with knives made in China under that brand. Following the scandal that ensued, the Laguiole municipality launched an action against several companies and legal persons that had registered 27 trademarks in total, on the ground that such use of “Laguiole” was deceptive.

Indeed, the trademark “Laguiole” had been filled in almost all trademarks’ classes and therefore the Laguiole municipality was prevented from using such trademark for its own activities and, in particular, for its renowned cheese and cutlery.

After a first-instance ruling, the Paris Court of Appeal rejected the Laguiole municipality’s action in 2014 which was subsequently presented to the French Supreme Court (“Cour de cassation”).

The Cour de cassation ruling

By a ruling dated 4 October 2016, the Cour de cassation overturned parts of the ruling of the Paris Court of Appeal and welcomed arguments of the Laguiole municipality.

Indeed, the Cour de cassation considered that the use of the “Laguiole” trademark by the defendants was misleading and confusing to consumers since the products sold under that trademark were not manufactured in such place.

In addition to such argument based on consumer protection laws, several arguments grounded on trademark law were also favourably received by the Cour de cassation. However, as such court only has jurisdiction over legal qualification but not on facts, the end of this saga will be written by the Court of Appeal to which the case has been remanded to for the final ruling.

The Court of Appeal will hopefully close the ongoing debate. However, the Court of Appeal may also side with the initial Paris Court of Appeal ruling. In such a case, the Cour de cassation may have to hear the case again.

Nevertheless, such litigation intervenes in a context where IGPIA has effectively become protected. Even if Laguiole was not among the five applications filed for IGPIA in France (out of which only one has been granted so far), the broad power given to geographical indications with the adoption of European Regulation No 2015/2424 amending the Community Trade Mark Regulation and the European Directive No 2015/2436 approximating the laws of the member states relating to trade marks may have an impact on actors’ practices.

Indeed, according to these regulations, the national right granted on geographical indications through IGPIA or otherwise conferred by the courts, may materialize a ground for refusal for not only trademark applications but also for European trademarks. There is thus a strong incentive to seek this protection by any means necessary.

By: Claude Armingaud and Olivia Roche

Copyright © 2020, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.