We reported last year that the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) were progressing. The main hurdle to clear was sufficient countries ratifying the Protocol on the Provisional Application (PAP-Protocol) of the UPC Agreement to allow the provisional application period (PAP) to begin.
Continue Reading Another Step Closer to a Unified EU Patent Court
One Step Closer to a Unified EU Patent Court
The Agreement on a Unified EU Patent Court (UPC Agreement) has been ratified by Germany following legal challenges in recent years over the constitutionality of the ratification bill.
The UPC Agreement provides for the establishment of a Unified Patent Court (UPC) as a court common to all participating Member States, with exclusive competence in respect of European patents and European patents with unitary effect.
The UPC will replace all individual enforcement courts in participating Member States and is intended to remove the need for and the cost of multi-jurisdictional patent disputes.
Continue Reading One Step Closer to a Unified EU Patent Court
Unified Patent Court- What is happening?
The UPC has faced continuous obstacles delaying its implementation. As matters stand, 15 contracting Member States have already ratified, including France and Italy. Once German ratification is complete it is anticipated that the final steps could be taken to set up the UPC in 2021 (with work likely starting in 2022), but more delays are now expected. In late December 2020, the German Parliament passed the ratification bill for the UPC Agreement but that was swiftly followed by the filing of two constitutional complaints with Federal Constitutional Court which delays the German process again.
Once up and running the UPC will replace all individual enforcement courts in different EU member states, enabling inventors and patent owners to enforce their patents across Europe. There will no longer be a requirement for multi-jurisdictional patent disputes, which has forced patent owners to litigate costly and complex issues throughout several European jurisdictions simultaneously.
Impact of Brexit on IP law
On 1 January 2021, the Trade and Co-operation Agreement (TCA) came into force and the general principles of EU law, existing EU treaties and EU free movement rights ceased to apply in the UK, after the transition period set out in the Withdrawal Agreement ended on 31 December 2020. Under the European Union
Sherlock Holmes and the copyright infringement claim
No doubt the famous fictional detective would have been only too happy to lend his detective skills to get to the bottom of the copyright infringement case brought by Arthur Conan Doyle’s estate against, amongst others, Netflix and the producers of the recent Netflix film, Enola Holmes. The case was dismissed in December, presumably because the parties reached a settlement, although this hasn’t been confirmed.
Background
For those who haven’t yet worked their way through all of Netflix’s recent releases, ‘Enola Holmes’ is a film based on a book by Nancy Springer, and centres around the teenage sister of the famous detective, as she goes to London in search of her mother who has disappeared.
The film was released in September 2020, but three months before that, the Conan Doyle Estate (CDE) issued legal proceedings in the USA against, amongst other defendants, Nancy Springer, Netflix and the producers of the film, for (i) copyright infringement in relation to the film’s depiction of Sherlock Holmes, and (ii) trade mark infringement in relation to the use of the ‘Holmes’ name in the film’s title.
Continue Reading Sherlock Holmes and the copyright infringement claim
Government publishes Spring Legislative Programme
The Government has published its legislation programme for Spring 2021. The programme contains 32 bills for publication and prioritisation by the Government.
Key Bills of relevance to the data protection, commercial and technology sector include:
Bills expected to undergo pre-legislative scrutiny
- Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill – This Bill will provide for the establishment of a Media Commission (including an Online Safety Commissioner), the dissolution of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, a regulatory framework to tackle the spread of harmful online content, and implementation of the revised Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive 2018/1808. The heads of Bill were published on 9 January 2020, and 8 December 2020. Member States were due to implement the revised AVMS Directive in national law by 19 September 2020, so Ireland has missed this deadline.
- Hate Crime Bill– This Bill will repeal the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, to provide for new and aggravated offences, including an offence of incitement. The Heads of Bill are in preparation.
Continue Reading Government publishes Spring Legislative Programme
Banksy loses EU trade mark due to “bad faith”
The purpose of copyright is to protect original artistic works, but Banksy is well-known for his view that “copyright is for losers”, which may well be linked to the fact that he would likely lose his anonymity by asserting copyright over his works. He has instead sought protection from commercialisation by third parties of his works through various trade mark registrations. However, a recent decision by the EUIPO has put an end to his trade mark registration protecting one of his most famous pieces of art.
Continue Reading Banksy loses EU trade mark due to “bad faith”
No likelihood of confusion between MASSI and MESSi
As we continue to adjust to new restrictions introduced by the government as a result of the pandemic, the world of trade marks has been business as usual. In this blog, we discuss a recent decision relating to a high profile trade mark proprietor, Lionel Messi, who is widely regarded as one of the best footballers in the world.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recently dismissed appeals brought by the EUIPO and a Spanish company against the judgment of the General Court authorising Lionel Messi to register the trade mark ‘MESSi’ for sports equipment and clothing. The CJEU held that there is no likelihood of confusion between the word mark MASSI and a figurative sign containing the word MESSi.
Continue Reading No likelihood of confusion between MASSI and MESSi
E-commerce operators not liable for trade mark infringement for mere storage of infringing goods
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has made an important ruling for brand owners, online marketplaces and retailers alike, in finding that Amazon is not liable for unwittingly stocking trade mark infringing goods on behalf of third party sellers.
Continue Reading E-commerce operators not liable for trade mark infringement for mere storage of infringing goods
Is a functional shape precluded from copyright protection?
In a recent case, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) considered whether a functional shape is precluded from copyright protection. The case was referred from the Commercial Court of Liège (Belgium) (C-833/18).
Background
The original case before the Commercial Court of Liège concerned a claim for copyright infringement brought by an English company, Brompton Bicycle Ltd (Brompton). Since 1987, Brompton has marketed and sold folding bicycles. The Brompton Bicycle, which was protected by a patent until 1999, has the distinct feature of having three different positions: (i) a folded position; (ii) an unfolded position; and (iii) a stand-by position enabling it to stay balanced on the ground.
When a South Korean company, Get2Get, started marketing a bicycle that could also be folded into the same three positions as the Brompton Bicycle, Brompton brought a claim for copyright infringement. In its defence, Get2Get claimed that the shape of the Brompton Bicycle could not be protected by copyright law because its appearance is dictated by the technical solution sought, which is to ensure that the bicycle can be folded into three different positions.
Continue Reading Is a functional shape precluded from copyright protection?