Photo of Alison Quinn

The UPC Preparatory Committee has adopted and published the Rules and Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. The 18th draft of the agreed Rules is subject to change only with respect to the court fees that may be applicable.   The 1st draft, published in 2009, was progressed through stages of expert meetings and technical and public consultation and sets out the specific framework and functioning of the Unified Patent Court.
Continue Reading UPC publishes agreed Rules of Procedure- 18th Draft

The Irish Patents Office has recently published its Annual Report for 2014 setting out trends, objectivities, activities throughout 2014 and what can be expected in 2015. The Annual Report sets out how the Irish Patent Office has discharged of its statutory functions under the Patents Act 1992 (as amended), the Trade Marks Acts 1996 (as amended), the Industrial Designs Act 2001 and the various statutory rules and regulations made under these Acts. A summary of the key findings are set out below.


Continue Reading Irish Patents Office Annual Report 2014

In an earlier update we announced that Ireland is to establish a local division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), subject to Ireland ratifying the International Agreement on a UPC by way of referendum. The International Agreement was signed by 25 EU Member States on 19 February 2013 and needs to be ratified by at least 13 states, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom to enter into force. There are currently only seven states that have ratified the Agreement with the Preparatory Committee of the UPC (which will remain in operation until the UPC is established) noting that many Member States hope to ratify in 2015.


Continue Reading Irish Ratification of UPC not expected until at least 2016

A French Supreme Court (the Cour de Cassation) has recently overturned a decision of the Paris Court of Appeal which had given a 2013 ruling in a copyright infringement case. The case involves the famous Longchamp "pilage" bag which, according to Longchamp, is the most copied bag in the world. The Cour de Cassation found that the Court of Appeal was in violation of the French Intellectual Property Code (Article L. 122-4) which deems it illegal to reproduce fully or partially a protected work without the authorisation of the right holder. 


Continue Reading Longchamp – French Supreme Court rules on copyright infringement

A French Supreme Court (the Cour de Cassation) has recently overturned a decision of the Paris Court of Appeal which had given a 2013 ruling in a copyright infringement case. The case involves the famous Longchamp "pilage" bag which, according to Longchamp, is the most copied bag in the world. The Cour de Cassation found that the Court of Appeal was in violation of the French Intellectual Property Code (Article L. 122-4) which deems it illegal to reproduce fully or partially a protected work without the authorisation of the right holder. The supreme courts (Cour de Cassation and Conseil d’État) acts as a cassation jurisdiction, giving them supreme jurisdiction in quashing the judgments of inferior courts where those courts misapplied law. Generally, cassation is not based on outright violations of law, but on differing interpretations of law between the courts.


Continue Reading Longchamp reaches the French Supreme Court over copyright infringement

In December 2014 the European Commission published its 5th Report on the monitoring of patent settlement agreements in the EEA in respect of the period January to December 2013. The focus of the report was to gather some insight into the types of agreements being entered into between originator and generic companies and to identify the types of agreements that were resulting in a delay to generic entry to the market. While these types of agreements can potentially give rise to competition law issues the Report does clarify that there is no presumption of any legislative breach and that each case would require analysis of the merits and specific circumstances.


Continue Reading Commission Report on the Monitoring of Patent Settlement Agreements

New Balance has kicked off a trademark action against Nike-owned Converse concerning its PF Flyers brand and the Converse trademark on Chuck Taylors. New Balance is requesting that the Federal Court in NY cancel the Converse trademark registration, which was obtained in 2013, so that they may continue selling their version of the shoe. New Balance has set out in court filed papers that the products are different enough and that consumers are unlikely to confuse the two. 

Last October saw Converse file a trademark action against 31 companies, notably not including New Balance, who they accused of infringing their trademark by producing knock-offs of their famous Chuck Taylor designed shoe. Should Converse be successful in this action New Balance has indicated their concern as to how such a ruling would be enforced.


Continue Reading New Balance trademark action against Converse

The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation has announced that Ireland will establish a local division of the Unified Patent Court. This of course is subject to Ireland ratifying the International Agreement (signed February 2013) on a Unified Patent Court by way of referendum. Under the terms of the International Agreement, Ireland has the choice of setting

Last night saw the Dublin Web Summit host a special "Web Summit Schools" evening. Over 5,000 students from all over the country attended a lively and interactive evening hosted by Marcus Segal, the former COO of Zynga Games.

Coder Dojo had a huge presence at the event with a good majority of students confirming that they

Italian publishing company Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA has had an appeal dismissed by the General Court in opposition proceedings brought against the registration of the mark GRAZIA.  In 2008, Grazia Equity GmbH sought to register a community trade mark in respect of the word sign GRAZIA under Classes 35 and 36 of the Nice Classification (business consultancy and financial services). 

Mondadori filed an opposition based on an earlier mark for GRAZIA under Classes 3, 9, 16, 18, 25 and 38.  In rejecting the opposition, the Opposition Division of OHIM said that there was no likelihood of confusion as the goods and services concerned were not similar.  Mondadori argued before the OHIM Fourth Board of Appeal that an overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion should have been considered, such as the fact that the mark was well known to the relevant public and that Article 8(5) of the Community Trademark Regulation 207/2009 should apply.  Mondadori filed a further appeal at the General Court when that argument was rejected and unfounded.


Continue Reading No confusion between GRAZIA marks