Source: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com.es/2012_12_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2017-05-27 02:32:50
Document Index: 680312840

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 7', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 165', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 7']

Lucky for Nestlé, the Board of Appeal eventually agreed, after making its way through the reasoning assault course of: first, determining whether the Division made a correct assessment as to the distinctiveness of the mark (Art. 7(1)(b)); secondly, assessing whether the mark had acquired distinctiveness through use (Art. 52(2)) and; thirdly, whether the mark's essential characteristics consisted exclusively of technical solutions therefore falling outside the scope of the exception of acquired distinctiveness (Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)). It's invalid if it's devoid of distinctiveness...
Article 52(2) provides that where the mark has been registered in breach of the grounds laid down in Art. 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) it may nevertheless not be declared invalid if it has acquired distinctive character through use in the relevant part of the EU where it was previously devoid of any such character. This requires at least a significant proportion of the relevant public of the relevant territories at the relevant time (either before the mark's filing date or between the date of registration and the application for a declaration of invalidity) to identify the goods or services as originating from a particular undertaking because of the use of the mark. The impression which a three-dimensional sign, consisting of the shape of the goods themselves, may create in the mind of the consumer is in principle likely to be the same throughout the EU, unless there is concrete evidence to the contrary. Thus, in the case of non-word marks, it is in the EU as a whole that that mark must have become distinctive though use in order to not be declared invalid. However, if a mark was registered or applied for before the dates of accession of new Member States, then the relevant territory, and therefore relevant public, is made up only of the States that composed the EU at the relevant time (Art. 165(4)(a)). Further, the CJEU's judgment in the Lindt chocolate bunny case that it would be unreasonable to require proof of acquisition for distinctive character for each individual Member State in which the mark did not have such character applied:
In this case, the Board assumed that surveys submitted by Nestlé were carried out according to the expected professional standards; the results and analysis provided by the author companies being reliable. Although some of the surveys had been conducted subsequent to the date of filing, the period between the relevant date and the survey period was sufficiently short (less than a year) to not diminish their supporting probative value as the data did not measure an immediate effect but mapped a market development process. Further, market share and ranking oscillations showed a certain stability of the market trend. The Board agreed with Nestlé that the populations of Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain together made up 79.2 per cent of the total population of the EU as composed by the fifteen Member States to be considered in the proceedings, as supported by population figures in 2007 published by Eurostat. Not only that, but add the Netherlands, Austria and other Member States into the mix, and it was possible for the Board to conclude that:
As such, the evidence was sufficient to establish that the trade mark had become distinctive through use in the relevant parts of the EU territory. ...Although only if it's essential characteristics relate to more than technical solutions... At this last hurdle, it was necessary for the Board to consider the exception to the exception (as it was one of the grounds of Cadbury's initial request for a declaration of invalidity) laid down in Art. 7(1)(e), which precludes registration of a sign, even if it has acquired distinctiveness through use, if it consists exclusively of shapes, inter alia, necessary to obtain a technical result (Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)). Once the essential characteristics, which are the most important elements of the sign (per Case R 513/2011-2 'Lego Brick'), of the three-dimensional sign have been identified by the authority deciding on the application for registration, the competent authority still has to ascertain whether they all perform the technical function of the goods at issue. As such, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii) is not applicable where the mark relates to a shape of goods in which a non-functional element, such as a decorative or imaginative element, plays an important role. The Board found; first, that the bars being aligned together and joined through a thinner base contributed to the making the portioning of the product easier but did not respond to a technical need or performed a technical function of the goods at issue (nor does it incorporate any technical solution developed and patented by the manufacturer of the product); Secondly, even if the bars served the purpose of facilitating partitioning of the product at the moment of consumption, such a solution was neither technical nor essential in the shape of the goods at hand; Thirdly, that solution might be incorporated without difficulty by competitors in shapes which do not have the same non-functional elements as that contained in the current shape, in particular the trapezoidal shape of each bar (to which can be added the alignment of bars, the alignment into four bars, the common joining base and its rectangular shape).
"Hooray!" shouted Nestlé [maybe] and this Kat. Reading the summary of the Cancellation Division's decision she had an uneasy feeling but was happy when she got to the Board's reasoning. However, she was, and is, a little shocked [and a little disgusted] to discover how much information about the (not so) humble Kit Kat was taking up precious space in her mind. Not only is she aware of the various evolved varieties and promotional campaigns but also has a special way of eating the four fingered three dimensional mark, which she will share with the IPKat readers, as a parting gift: make a strong cup of Earl Grey tea with a touch of milk so it's almost black, bite off both ends of one finger and use said finger as a straw for drinking the tea. Perhaps not worthy of a patent, but surely an evolution of the art of biscuit eating. When this Kat started studying IP and encouraged to read the IPKat by her lecturer she never dreamed she would have the opportunity to contribute to the blog. It has been a great honour. She thanks her fellow Kats and all IPKat readers.
In the recent interim decision in Interflora, Inc. Interflora British Unit v Marks and Spencer PLC Flowers Direct Online Limited [2009] EWHC 1095 (Ch) (IPKat post here), the English Court of Appeal examined in detail the nature and role of survey evidence. It did so with a strong emphasis on the court's duty to actively manage cases in a way which was proportionate to the costs involved pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 1.4(1), 1.4(2) and 32.1. Lewison LJ noted that in instances where the question was whether there was a likelihood of confusion, a survey contributed little to the assessment, particularly where the goods or services were ordinary and within the judge's own experience. Hmm, what shall I have for tea?
Common themes have emerged. In particular, it is clear that the approach to the design, execution and presentation of an influential trade mark survey is reasonably universal, perhaps due to its basis upon scientific principles. In an encouraging sign, there is a definite drive from the judiciary in several jurisdictions to keep costs to a minimum, for instance encouraging co-operation between the parties and the preparation of joint surveys with costs sanctions for failure to do so. The 'Best Practices' in this report follow the distillation of these common themes. In general, common law jurisdictions such as England & Wales, the United States of America, Canada and Australia have substantially greater guidance available, reflecting a well-developed practice of using surveys as evidence. In other countries guidance tends to be fairly limited, if indeed there is any at all. That may change over time as local jurisprudence develops, but the issue is likely to be fertile ground for development for some time. This report has accordingly been drafted with a view to being updated periodically.
Survey evidence,
Waking up with intent to blog, Miffy wonders who stoleher keyboard ... "The average Kat spends between 18 and 20 hours of each day asleep and only generally wakes up to eat, wash or produce the next round of kittens. One might therefore assume that the biggest development of 2012 is the one that makes the most noise and therefore stands the best chance of waking the slumbering beast. Rumpuses over Google books and AdWords, Apple iPads and smartphones, European patents and Chinese fakes might fit this bill -- but none of these is of fundamental importance. The biggest development in IP in the past year is a psychological one, a shift in perspective and understanding that transcends all IP rights and all geographical regions: it is the increasing realisation on the part of IP owners that they cannot rely on legislators to come to their rescue, however bad their plight might be -- the realisation that they are on their own, that IP protection really and truly doesn't pull in the votes in democracies or impress the hardened hearts of dictatorships, and that in international bodies such as WIPO there are too many opposing forces and conflicting interests at work to enable a "quick fix" to be found.
IP enforcement: a jobfor the Purr-minator?
Kat opinion
Merpel's mischievous thought: if the Kat's GoogleSite has been white-listed, does that givehim free rein to violate the terms of use ...?
While on the subject of terms of use ... this Kat did not receive an e-greeting from the UK's Copyright Licensing Agency this year, though he assumes that it's nothing personal since he receives lots of news from the CLA. One of the Kat's friends did however receive this year's greeting, illustrated on the right. This friend, who prefers on this occasion to remain anonymous, wonders if anyone else noticed the little bit at the bottom left-hand side of the greeting -- the bit with the image of a small but unmistakably red bird, in the familiar shape of the Twitter bird logo. Now, it's quite possible that the CLA has negotiated something with Twitter and that there is nothing untoward about the little red bird. However, if you visit the web page entitled Twitter Trademark and Content Display Policy and scroll down to the logo's terms of use ("Using the Twitter brand and trademarks"), you will find the following list of no-nos:
"Don't: Use speech bubbles or words around the bird.
Victoria Beckhamsupports the Kat ...
This Kat, always a bit contrarian, remembers how proud he felt in the 1960s when he first took out a weekly subscription to the magazine, rather than to the more widely-circulated Time. He recalls that he was particularly fond of reading the weekly column of such notables as Milton Friedman here and Stewart Alsop here. But by the end of the 1970s, this Kat found the contents of the magazine decreasingly interesting and he drifted to The Economist. He wondered even then whether there was a long-time place for the magazine and he frankly had not read an issue for more than 20 years. Still, during all that time, the notion that Time magazine had a competitor in the space for a weekly news magazine was a source of comfort, but he did nothing to ensure that such competition would endure. I have no idea whether the digital form version of the magazine will succeed (as the aphorism notes,"It is hard to predict, especially about the future"). Still, the demise of the print edition raises once again the question: are general content print magazines all ultimately doomed to extinction, or is the departure of Newsweek a specific tale of the challenge not met by being only second best in its space? Magazines (and newspapers) have come and gone for more than two centuries for a variety of reasons. This Kat imagines that the decline of readership is, and has been, the common denominator for most, if not all, of these defunct publications. When readership falls, a decline in advertising and other circulation-based revenues inevitably follows.
This Kat has no idea of the profitability of the print edition of weekly magazines such as The Economist or Time. Nor does he know whether such magazines are already plotting their ultimate departure from the print world. Whether they and others will do so by maintaining both print and online options, or by migrating wholly to the on-line environment, remains to be seen. But what seems certain, at least in this Kat's eyes, is that some of the current titans in print form will successfully make a partial or full transition to the online world. They will do so because of a combination of superior contents and a compelling brand. At the end of the day, Newsweek failed because it was never quite good enough and its vulnerabilities were revealed in full when the online challenge was added to the competitive mix. As sad as it might seem, and even as this Kat thanks Newsweek for being an important part of his intellectual youth, its ultimate demise was sensed decades ago.
Coexistence agreements,
registrability,
trade mark amendment,
From L to R: Thierry Geerts (Google Belgium); Frans Wauter (authors' associations); Francois leHodey (Belgian French language news publishers) Google News probably represents one
of the most interesting copyright-related series of cases of the decade. While some European
countries - notably Germany (here) and France (here and here) - are thinking of asking (well, sort of ... Merpel reckons that the question is not asked in "would you mind"-like terms)
Google to pay for displaying links to and snippets of newspaper articles, and in
other countries (eg Brazil) members of national newspaper
associations have opted out of the Google News service, a few days ago news
reached the IPKat that an agreement has been achieved in Belgium.
Indeed, earlier this month, Google and
Belgian French-language newspaper publishers concluded a settlement, thus putting
an end to a six year-long running litigation concerning whether Google infringed
publishers' copyright by displaying snippets of and links to cached copies of
their pages. There was even a moment when the Belgian newspapers were excluded
completely from Google News service. What are the contents of this
agreement? As reported on the Google Europe Blog, from now on Google and Belgian
French-language publishers will partner on a broad range of business
initiatives, in order to:
both the publishers’ and Google’s services - Google will advertise
its services on the publishers’ media, while the publishers will optimise
their use of Google’s advertising solutions, in particular AdWords [but also YouTube: see further below] to
attract new readers.
publishers’ revenue [but
also Google's, as Mountain View-based internet giant will sell online ads for the newspapers in return
for a cute of the sales] - by
collaborating on making money with content, both via premium models
(paywalls, subscriptions), and via advertising solutions such as the AdSense platform and the AdExchange marketplace;
reader engagement - by implementing Google+ social
tools, including video Hangouts, on news sites, and launching
official YouTube channels;
the accessibility of the publishers’ content - by collaborating
on the distribution of the publishers original content on mobile
platforms, in particular smartphones and tablets.
As explained by the Wall Street Journal, financial details of
the settlement were not disclosed. Although Google said that it is not paying
the newspapers to appear on its News service, the Huffington Post (quoting from Le Monde) reported that Google has
accepted to pay a sum comprised between 2-3% (around EUR 5m) of the total
turnover of Belgian French-language newspapers.
Google News agreement in Belgium,
newspapers's headlines and snippets
Red -- but not,it seems, legal ...
own name defence,
partial revocation,
prior use of unregistered mark,
The invention of shops wasa great boost to retail trade ...
Maine's greatest invention: salmonthat have been genetically modifiedto jump into fishermen's hands ...
Around the weblogs. Ben Challis's "2012 -- the Copyright Year", which you can find on the 1709 Blog here, offers a broad perspective on events in the past 12 months, while another review of the year, being Daniel Alexander QC's paper for AIPPI UK, appears on PatLit here. "Don't do contingency deals with inventors", warns Mark Anderson on the IP Draughts blog. If you want to know why, click here to find out. Mike Mireles, who has just joined the IP Finance blog team, comments on the US$ 527 million Kodak patent sale. Here's a book which you may wish to peruse ...: It's called Model Law for Intellectual Property
A Proposal for German Law Reform and, for the benefit of the lazy, the busy and the impatient, this is the Abbreviated English Edition. Under the stewardship of editors Hans-Jürgen Ahrens and Mary-Rose McGuire, it summarises several years of research and careful thought, backed by GRUR, which led to the publication of the 844-page German version (as against 150 pages for the abbreviated version). The Model Law on IP will be formally presented to a wider public at a Conference in Mannheim on 7 and 8 February 2013 -- but you can place your order for the English version long before then. At just 29 euros it looks a bargain. For further details click the Sellier website here.
... and here's a book you won't be able to put down -- assuming that you can pick it up. It's Faking It: Manipulated Photography before Photoshop, by Mia Fineman.
Published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which is currently hosting an exhibition on this very theme, and distributed by Yale Books, this extremely heavy work will consume your hand-luggage allowance with no trouble, but it's well worth lugging it around till you've finished it. The lavishly-illustrated text provides a great deal to think about if you ever seriously believed the old truism that "the camera doesn't lie". The publishers also address the 'orphan work' issue by publishing some illustrations which, it is plain, they regard as potentially infringing and asking owners of copyright who have not given them permission to get in touch with them.
"Who owns the world's heritage? In the early '90s there was heated debate between the various member countries of the FAO [the UN Food and Agriculture Organization] about patenting and access to genetic resources. Developing countries wished to receive part of the proceeds from the commercial seed industry, since the diversity mainly came from their areas, whilst the commercial seed industry wanted free access to such resources and the opportunity to patent the seeds. This led to a polarised atmosphere with little mutual trust regarding the administration of seed. .... The turning point came when FAO’s International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture came into force in 2004. This created a new basis for taking the plans up again." As result, in 2006, groundbreaking took place on the Svalbard site and the facility (as seen from this drawing of the Global Crop Diversity Trust) was up and running in 2008. Time magazine, the ultimate arbiter on this kind of thing, ranked the vault among the top inventions of 2008. Construction costs were borne by the Government of Norway; operational costs are covered by the Government of Norway and the Global Crop Diversity Trust, which is supported inter alia by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and various governments. There are three chambers, each with a capacity to store 1.5 million seed samples. Apparently only the frost is permanent, there being no permanent staff on-site. As described, perhaps with a tinge of hyperbole by National Geographic magazine, “Doomsday” Seed Vault Safeguards Our Food Supply." See here and here for more about the facility.
"the deposit of the seeds will not affect any property or other rights pertaining to the material; the deposited seeds will remain in sealed envelopes, unless otherwise agreed with the Depositor; and the Svalbard Global Seed Vault will take no action to further transfer the material except back to the original Depositor or the Depositor’s successor in title, or in accordance with the Depositor’s instructions". Wikipedia adds that "researchers, plant breeders and other groups wishing to access seed samples cannot do so through the seed vault; instead they must request samples from the depositing genebanks."
In the super-charged world of agro-policy, there are those who challenge the entire Svalbard seed vault enterprise. Consider the comments of Deniza Gertzberg on March 22 in the GMO Journal ("Controversy With The Doomsday Vault") here. "That’s exactly the problem say critics who have been apprehensive about the Doomsday Vault from the beginning. It’s double-speak, they argue because the vision that is sold to the world is a noble one, where seeds are saved, biodiversity is preserved and the world has a back-up system in case of of a disaster. The reality, however, may be that the Vault is contributing to the decline of biodiversity by giving greater seed access to biotech companies who could contact the depositing seed bank directly or through institutions whose research they fund, to then churn out patented crops. Biopiracy is the charge and it has been done before. That’s why, critics point out, it matters who supports the operation of the seed bank and who has access to the seeds because giving greater biological diversity access to companies whose business models are associated with monocropping, greater use of pesticides, declining biodiversity and the wiping away of local knowledge and traditions would seem to perverse the initial intention of the Doomsday Vault."
I wish all of you the best for the holiday season. Posted by