Source: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com.br/2017/
Timestamp: 2017-12-13 15:07:43
Document Index: 769415806

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'art 2', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU\n', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

Posted by Merpel at 08:35:00 0 comments
Missed out on the IPKat’s latest a couple of weeks ago? Not to worry, the 172nd edition of Never Too Late is out to help you catch up!
[Week ending 26 November]
Time came for EMA relocation: and the winner is...Amsterdam! Guest Kat Eibhlin explains what happened at the polling stations.
Kat Neil dwelt in the fashion world to honour one of its most notable representatives in In memoriam: Azzedine Alaïa, the King of Cling (and what it tells us about the fashion industry).
Another national chapter post GS Media judgment. Kat Friend Theodoros Chíou tells us that Athens Court of Appeal applies CJEU GS Media linking decision and interprets 'profit-making intention' restrictively.
The Paris Tribunal, deciding on a copyright case held that Damages awarded for the ‘loss of opportunity’ to commercialise photographs following infringement. Although, as Kat Mathilde explains, the basis for this conclusion is not really to be found in the judgment.
Lost their marbles? When can you register a geographical name as a trade mark? Mermeren v Fox. Guest Kat Rosie reports on the dispute between the two marble companies and whether Sivec can be considered an indication of geographical origin.
Kat Friend Danny Friedman reported for us about the fact that Sir Robin Jacob calls for System 2 thinking for patent law in an intriguing lecture.
Bad news for some businesses in Florence as Kat Eleonora reports that Florence court prohibits unauthorized commercial use of David's image, as this is incompatible with the Italian Cultural Heritage Code. The link to the decision and more info were provided by Eleonora on a later post here.
Weekly Roundups: Thursday Thingies
Kat found scouting in the new EMA location
[Week ending 3 December]
What better news on a Monday as one relating to party sports? In Clash of the beer pongs - Breakthrough Funding Ltd v Nearby Media Ltd, Guest Kat Rosie takes her shot into the red cups!
In the framework of the Qatar diplomatic crisis, Kat Friend Riyadh Al-Balushi tells us that WTO establishes panel to examine Qatar’s complaint against UAE.
What's next for trade marks in the UK and EU? Report on JIPLP/GRUR trade mark conference by Kat Friend Natasha Rao. The conference, moderated by IPKat’s own Eleonora, discussed the implication of the 2015 EU TM Regulation, recent case-law and Brexit.
Important developments in copyright! Kat Eleonora first swiftly informed us about the CJEU decision in BREAKING: CJEU rules in that the making available of copies of TV programmes saved in the cloud must be authorised by rights owner and then analysed and commented on the decision in The VCAST decision: how to turn a private copying case into a case about communication/making available to the public.
Be prepared to suffer the consequences if you are caught infringing a patent in France. Guest Kat Mathilde reports on a Supreme Court case which allows for public condemnation in France: patent infringers can be ‘named and shamed’…within reason.
Kat Friends Oliver Löffel and Birgit Clark report on the fact that BGH rules on international jurisdiction of German courts in EU trade mark cases. The BGH held that an overall assessment has to be carried out to determine the first infringing act.
The AmeriKat reports on the much awaited communication on SEPs. In EU Commission sets middle course for SEP licensing in Europe she lists the major takeaway points and reports a snarky comment by Merpel.
In the intricate world of joint authorship, a light of guidance arises In Claim of joint authorship fails in the Florence Foster Jenkins case Guest Kat Mathilde discusses the outcome of the case and lists the knowledge deriving from it in Judge Hacon’s 10 (+ 1) commandments on joint authorship under UK copyright law. A new era has begun!
UK House of Commons committee progresses final stages of UPC ratification, reports Kat Friend Alex Robinson. The possibility of ratification of the UPC in the UK before the end of the year may become reality.
Kat Friend Alex Woolgar generously reported for us on the two-day INTA Berlin event. Here are his reports: INTA Brand Authenticity Conference (Report 1): Building brand value via ethical and sustainable credentials; INTA Brand Authenticity Conference (Report 2): Building brand value via ethical and sustainable credentials and INTA Brand Authenticity Conference (Report 3): Building brand value via ethical and sustainable credentials.
A few days back, the AmeriKat talked about the MSD v Teva decision but only a rough translation was available. Now, thanks to a Kat Friend: Now available!: English translation of Dutch Supreme Court decision in MSD v Teva highlights UK Supreme Court's Actavis decision
Image credit: ackab1 (Flickr.com)
Never Too Late 170 [week ending Sunday 5 November] What future for UK copyright after Brexit? Report on IPKat-BLACA panel discussion | US patent litigation on the move again following In re Cray | Does the doctrine of equivalents apply to novelty? | Internet and Digital Media Law conference returns to London UNION-IP event: "IP - Past, Present and Future" | The Relevant Public and Likelihood of Confusion in Respect of Chinese Character Trademarks | GUI Goo for Chewy Chewing 1 How far to take user rights into consideration? Repair? | Bringing a counterclaim for patent revocation: not so fast in Singapore | SPC consultation - call for input | Linking in the US: is an embedded tweet an infringement of the public display right? | Katcall: Openings for GuestKats and InternKats! | Dutch Supreme Court in Merck v Teva holds that second medical use claims can be directly and indirectly infringed, no matter the type | The rise of "obvious to try" is over as Court of Appeal finds CIALIS dosage regimen patent obvious | Wednesday Whimsies| [week ending Sunday 29 October] Abanka DD v Abanca Corporacion Bancaria SA|IP Federation declares no role for IP disputes in proposed Hague Convention, while INTA takes a different approach | Book review: Grounds of the Immaterial - A Conflict-based Approach to Intellectual Property Rights |Teva v Gilead: Swiss court bashes ECJ on SPC "mess" | Book Review: Form in Intellectual Property Law | T 1201/14: EPC's substantive requirements for valid transfer of priority right surprisingly substantial | Qatar diplomatic crisis: “beIN Sports” and potential violations of the TRIPS Agreement – | Part 2 TV formats potentially eligible for copyright protection as dramatic works under UK law | Banner Universal Motion Pictures Ltd v Endemol Shine Group Ltd & Anor [2017]
Posted by Cecilia Sbrolli at 19:02:00 0 comments
Labels: Commission SEP communication, GS Media, international jurisdiction, joint authorship, loss of opportunity, VCAST Limited v R.T.I. SpA
Posted by Neil Wilkof at 16:20:00 0 comments
Posted by Mark Schweizer at 14:29:00 0 comments
Free OxFirst Webinar: Tuesday 12th December 2017: 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM GMT
John E. Dubiansky, an attorney advisor in the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning, will talk on the subject of IP valuation and demystify a concept crucial to building markets for intellectual property. Full details and registration here.
1. The New IP Lawyers network and Exeter Law School are delighted invite you to their second conference in intellectual property law, entitled ‘Intellectual property in transitions: (Re)-imagining intellectual property’, on the 16th and 17th of April 2018. The call for contribution for paper and panel submissions is now open, the deadline for which is 24th January. Full details here.
2. The Annual ISHTIP Workshop takes place at the University of Roma Tre, from the 4th-6th July 2018 and it has now opened its call for papers on the topic of Intellectual Property and Heritage. The deadline for submission is 16 February 2018, full details here.
May the Copyright Games Begin!
3. Submissions are welcome for Icepops: an international copyright-literacy event with playful opportunities for practitioners and scholars. The event is devised by the UK Copyright Literacy team - Chris Morrison and Jane Secker, and run in conjunction with the CILIP Information Literacy Group, together with a helping paw from one of our Kats, Dr Hayleigh Bosher. The day includes keynote speakers, a world café, an opportunity to play copyright games, and take part in a copyright games hackathon. The event takes place on 3rd April 2018 at the University of Liverpool, full details here.
1. Are you Estonian, love IP and are good at it? Then this ad may interest you. Professor Derclaye is looking for a research assistant to help her with design case law from Estonia. You should be fluent in English and Estonian and have done at least one course on IP, so you can be a student at any level, or even a practising lawyer. The work is of course remunerated, but at the University of Nottingham student rate. Deadline: as soon as possible. If you’re interested, you can send your CV directly to Prof. Derclaye at Estelle.derclaye@nottingham.ac.uk You can of course contact her too if you’d simply like more information.
2. Africa University seeks to appoint a suitably qualified professional as Professor/Associate Professor or Senior Lecturer, within the College of Business, Peace, Leadership and Governance at Africa University. The application deadline is 31 January 2018, full details here.
3. The University of Southampton Law School is recruiting a Research Fellow, to undertake legal research work for a fixed term of 2 years, commencing January 2018, on a Horizon 2020 funded research project on accelerating innovation services (Datapitch). The focus of the post will be to provide consultative legal and ethical advice and analysis to the interdisciplinary team in order to inform the development of the project objectives. The closing date for applications is Tuesday 02 January 2018, full details here.
The report Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (CITMA) publishes the Brexit business case. The report sets out why the rights of to represent clients and businesses before the EUIPO is of paramount importance and why those rights must continue after Brexit. The full business case - Trade marks, designs, business and Brexit: a case for clarity, collaboration & concerted action - can be read and downloaded here.
Photo: Chris Canipe
Posted by Hayleigh Bosher at 16:30:00 0 comments
Labels: Brexit, call for papers, events, jobs, Monday miscellany, trade mark, Vacancies
Posted by Mark Schweizer at 09:21:00 1 comments
New approaches to graphical representation
call for some creative thinking -
Ed Devlin's Singing Tree at theV&A
The following is a guest post from Roberto A. Jacchia and Giulia Beneduci (De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani in Milan). They have some interesting thoughts on non-traditional trade marks and the impact of the recent EU trade mark reforms. Here is what they have to say:
In today’s highly competitive markets, producers of consumer goods increasingly launch new marketing strategies, aimed at stimulating a broad array of sensory reactions, often based on innovative technologies. Consequently, the commercial appeal of non-traditional trademarks has increased, and IP law has been compelled to address the manifold challenges involved by their protection.
In the abstract, all kinds of signs can amount to trademarks, and atypical marks are a multi-faceted and lively reality. Just to make some famous examples among EU registrations, one can think of the lilac/violet colour of the packaging of Milka chocolate (colour trademark), McDonald’s jingle “I’m lovin’ it” (sound trademark) or the Nokia video of a handshaking displayed on mobile phones when switching on (motion trademark).
However, non-conventional trademarks present difficulties in relation to the fulfilment of the requirements for registration. In general, they have often been excluded from registration, or thereafter declared invalid, usually because either (i) the applicant or proprietor was unable to represent them graphically, (ii) they were found to lack distinctive character, and/or (iii) they were considered an indivisible part or feature of the product.
One of the major changes introduced by the recent EU Trademark Reform – pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (New Regulation) and Directive 2015/2436/EU (New Directive) – addresses the concept of sign capable of registration as a trademark. This directly impacts on the protection of atypical marks.
The recent Reform abolished the original requirement of graphical representation of the sign. Starting from 1 October 2017, in order to be validly registered as a EU trade mark, the sign must still be capable of being represented, but any appropriate form of representation is admitted, as long as it “enables the competent authorities and the public to determine the clear and precise subject matter of the protection afforded to its proprietor” (Article 4, letter b), of the New Regulation). The corresponding provision in Article 3, letter b), of the New Directive will need to be transposed by Member States within January 14, 2019. Besides, another change introduced by the Reform is the express addition of colours and sounds to the exemplifying list of signs capable of being registered as trade marks (pursuant, again, to Article 4 of the New Regulation and Article 3 of the New Directive).
The requirement of graphical representation was conceived in order to define the mark and determine the precise scope of the protection afforded to its holder and, mirror-wise, of the rights of third parties. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) expressly connected the need for a clear and precise representation of the mark to that of legal certainty, not only towards the public and consumers, but likewise towards the authorities, as well as other economic operators. Reflecting the principles laid down by the CJEU in the Sieckmann judgment (12.12.2002, Case C-273/00), Recital (10) of the New Regulation and Recital (13) of the New Directive now provide that the trademark representation must be “clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective”.
The Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1431 (Implementing Regulation), also applying as from 1 October 2017, points out that the introduction of technical alternatives to graphical representation may be afforded by new technologies (see Recital 6) and (in Article 3) sets out a series of technical rules for the representation of certain types of trademarks when filing an application before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
For example, a multimedia mark (consisting of, or extending to, the combination of image and sound), must be represented “by submitting an audiovisual file containing the combination of the image and the sound” (Article 3.3, letter i), Implementing Regulation), while a hologram mark must be represented “by submitting a video file or a graphic or photographic reproduction containing the views which are necessary to sufficiently identify the holographic effect in its entirety” (letter j)). A table on the EUIPO website lists the most popular types of trademark, specifying their respective representation, whether a description is required and the format accepted by the Office from 1 October 2017.
What about smell, taste and tactile marks?
On the other hand, for certain “borderline” categories of atypical marks, the EU legal system seems not yet ready. Article 3.9 of the Implementing Regulation provides that the filing of a sample cannot constitute a proper representation, hence in practice impedes the registration, of smell, taste and tactile trade marks, because “the subject matter of protection cannot be determined with clarity and precision with generally available technology” (EUIPO Guidelines for Examination, Part B, Section 4, Chapter 2, Version of 01.10.2017). Actually, as specifically regards olfactory trade marks at EU level, the registration of “the smell of fresh cut grass” for tennis balls, filed in the nineties and then expired without renewal, altogether remained an isolated case.
On the whole, the EU Trademark Reform encourages the registration and protection of atypical trade marks, by “releasing” the representability requirement from its graphical declination. However, as some Italian legal literature recently observed, the requirement still applies in compliance with the demanding Sieckmann criteria, which continue to be referred to in the Recitals of the New Regulation as well as the New Directive.
Therefore, the impact that the Reform will have on non-conventional trademarks remains to be seen based on how the Courts and IP Offices, especially the CJEU and EUIPO, will implement the changes. A particular auspice among cutting-edge businesses, increasingly investing in scent marketing, seems to be that new methods of representation could be developed in the future with the progress of science, so that the evanescent, unstable nature of scent may then no longer prove an obstacle to registration.
Posted by Rosie Burbidge at 08:30:00 0 comments
Labels: colour, colour mark, graphical representation, Sieckmann criteria, smell mark, tactile mark, taste mark, trade mark, trademark
Posted by Cecilia Sbrolli at 08:11:00 0 comments
Labels: Article 101 TFEU, Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH C-230/16; distribution agreements; competition law; trade marks; CJEU
Posted by Tian Lu at 20:42:00 0 comments
Posted by Annsley Merelle Ward at 16:16:00 4 comments
Labels: AmeriKat, Article 50, Brexit, CJEU, EU Justice Sub-Committee, EU select committee, House of Lords, post-brexit
The AmeriKat's new tattoo
Back in July last year right, at the end of the Court's Trinity Term, Mr Justice Arnold referred two questions to the CJEU on the SPC Regulation in Merck Sharp & Dohme v Comptroller-General of Patents [2016] EWHC 1896. Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union responded to Arnold J's questions in Case C-567/16 holding that an end of procedure notice does not amount to a granted marketing authorization for purposes of Article 3(b). The AmeriKat summarized the background of the dispute, parties' arguments and referred questions in this post - but for ease she repeats the background for readers below.
What do you do if your patent is about to expire, but despite notice that Member States (MSs) have agreed to grant your marketing authorization (MA) under the decentralized procedure, a MS has not yet taken the step to actually grant it? You still make your SPC application, of course.
What happens after that was subject to a reference to the CJEU (form of questions below).
By the time a MA for a medicinal product is granted, much of the term of the patent that protects the product will have expired. This means that the effective protection under the patent is insufficient to cover the investment in R&D (see Article 4 of the SPC Regulation).
Oh, why did the SPC Regulation have to
be that clear?
In September 2006, MSD began development of the fixed dose combo of ezetimibe and atorvastatin. However, it encountered formulation difficulties. Seven years later, in September 2013, MSD filed MAs for Atozet in a number of Member States using the decentralized procedure (DCP) of obtaining a MA. MSD designated Germany as the reference Member State (RMS). As the RMS, the German medicines regulatory authority - Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte - coordinated the approval process, preparing the draft documents and, most importantly, the draft summary of product characteristics (SmPC) on which the other Member States comment. All Member States' respective regulatory bodies need to be happy with the documents before the procedure is closed. Thereafter, once agreement is reached, each Member State has 30 days to grant the MA.
The German medicines authority did not accept that MSD had filed a valid application until 13 February 2014. On 12 September that year - a single day before the patent expired (remember the basic patent has to be in force under Article 3(a)) - MSD applied for its UK SPC at the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO). However, MSD did not have a granted UK MA. Instead, MSD submitted, with their SPC application, a copy of the end of procedure (EoP) notice from the German medicines agency stating that the DCP had ended with approval. MSD explained that the effect of the EoP notice was that concerned Member States, including the UK, had agreed to grant a MA for Atozet. MSD therefore asked the UK IPO for permission to supplement their application when their UK MA was granted.
The path to a granted SPC under the DCP
The final form of the questions referred to the Court and the CJEU's answers are set out below:
1. Is an end of procedure notice issued by the reference Member State under Article 28(4) of Directive [2001/83] before expiry of the basic patent to be treated as equivalent to a granted marketing authorisation for the purpose of Article 3(b) of [the SPC Regulation], such that an applicant for [an SPC] in the Member State in question is entitled to apply for and be granted [an SPC] on the basis of the end of procedure notice?
No - an end of procedure notice issued by a reference Member State in accordance with the DCP is not to be treated as equivalent to an MA. The natural reading of the word "granted" in Article 3(b) is that the action has to have been completed. The grant of an SPC is linked to the grant of a MA so an SPC can only be granted if an MA has been granted. After setting out the specific procedure of the DCP, the CJEU turned to the crux of the issue. It stated that the adoption of an end of procedure notice under Article 28(4) of Directive 2001/83 represents an intermediate stage in the DCP. The notice does not have the same legal effect as a "valid" MA. Although the notice has features of an MA (guaranteeing safety, identifying the product, etc), it importantly does not not permit an applicant to place on the market the medicinal product - an MA does. This is the "essential feature " of a MA.
The Court cited Forsgren (C-631/13) on the basis that that Court stated that a patented product may not give rise to the grant of an SPC unless the medicinal product has been granted a MA.
2. If the answer to question 1 is no: in the circumstances in question, is the absence of a granted marketing authorisation in the Member State in question at the date of the application for [an SPC] in that Member State an irregularity that can be cured under Article 10(3) of [the SPC Regulation] once the marketing authorisation has been granted?
No. Article 3(b) states an SPC is to be granted "if...a valid authorization to place the product on the market as a medicinal product has been granted". There needs to be a granted MA in the Member State concerned. If this condition is not met, then the SPC should be rejected by the relevant MS's authority. Article 10(3) only relates to irregularities relating to the application for the SPC. An absence of an MA does not constitute an irregularity of the application - it is "an irregularity in connection with the product, as a medicinal product, not an irregularity in connection with the SPC application." Essentially Article 10(3) is for curing defects relating to paperwork, not defects relating to the conditions of grant.
On the strict literal wording of the SPC Regulation, the AmeriKat can understand the reasoning of the Court. But why should an applicant be penalized because (i) it takes longer to prove the safety and efficacy of a formulated medicinal product and (ii) a national medicines agency's speed may slow the DCP leading to a granted MA? Isn't this time loss exactly why we have an SPC Regulation? This may be a hangry rant, but the AmeriKat is left searching for the justice of a telelogical approach amongst the black and white interpretation of the drafting of the SPC Regulation in this decision. Merpel also finds irony in that, seemingly for once, the SPC Regulation is too clear.
Posted by Annsley Merelle Ward at 19:34:00 5 comments
Labels: AmeriKat, Article 3(b), CJEU, comptroller, Merck, MSD, SPC, SPC regulation, SPCs