tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55744792024-03-19T10:50:33.334+00:00The IPKatVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger14275120tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89603505904750028412024-03-19T09:51:00.001+00:002024-03-19T09:53:53.185+00:00Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!<p><b>If you were too busy last week to keep an eye on the IP news</b>, here's the summary of the stories you overlooked:</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Trade Marks</h3><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5tjOvtJ71NP21jrR0mXpmuQRgzRRLpMBpXmVGPAPpuG8SURSTPYA5Oo0DdDAQgnc2MmmoocubFK2LWluEPRBUPtEpNy6R4eExTWo7BTile5DM_CgfG_-uybs-v6uWojvbox1h5sYT6ZwaZKQ1fOZkZQzUj_FgqZupSNFmXqf1MDK9nr0xXUdtzg/s854/cat-5855647_1280.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="854" data-original-width="854" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5tjOvtJ71NP21jrR0mXpmuQRgzRRLpMBpXmVGPAPpuG8SURSTPYA5Oo0DdDAQgnc2MmmoocubFK2LWluEPRBUPtEpNy6R4eExTWo7BTile5DM_CgfG_-uybs-v6uWojvbox1h5sYT6ZwaZKQ1fOZkZQzUj_FgqZupSNFmXqf1MDK9nr0xXUdtzg/s320/cat-5855647_1280.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Keeping an eye on the IP news.<br />Photo from SamMino via Pixabay.</td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: left;">This Kat <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/old-bottles-for-new-certan-bordeaux.html">outlined</a> </b>the recent judgment in <i>Société Civile et Agricole du Vieux Château Certan v Kreglinger (Australia) Pty Ltd</i> <b><a href="https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0248">[2024] FCA 248</a></b>. A single judge of the Federal Court of Australia held that a Tasmanian wine producer had not passed off its "New Certan" red wine as being connected or associated with the Bordeaux wine estate, Vieux Château Certan. The French wine producer also failed to get the NEW CERTAN trade mark registration cancelled.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Copyright and Designs</h3><p>Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/french-court-confirms-copyright.html">discussed</a></b> the decision of the Court of Appeal of Lyon concerning an iconic model of stool, named “Tam Tam.” The stool had been the subject of a registered design, but the case concerned whether the work of applied art met the originality requirement and had been infringed under copyright law.</p><p>Marcel Pemsel <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/cjeu-paris-convention-does-not-allow.html">evaluated</a></b> the recent CJEU judgment in <i>The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR</i> (<b><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=C657FD3F3E3FB1EB592C43B57C33120C?text=&docid=283244&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN">Case C-382/21 P</a></b>), which held that the Paris Convention does not allow cross-IP priority claims in general. Consequently, applications to register Community designs with the EUIPO could not claim priority based on a PCT patent application more than six months after the filing date of the patent application.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Eleonora Rosati <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/weekend-reading-many-copyright.html">considered</a></b> the potential copyright issues arising from the picture that was published from the official social media accounts of The Prince and Princess of Wales to mark Mother’s Day, which was ostensibly manipulated by Kate Middleton. The copyright questions abound, including the application of the law on authorship, ownership, originality, infringement, and defences.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Katfriend <b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/nkem-itanyi-phd-law-8a3015a1/">Nkem Itanyi</a></b> <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/guest-post-complexities-of-audiovisual.html">informed</a></b> readers about the dispute concerning the movie “Shanty Town” (released on Netflix in 2023). She discusses the issues for joint authorship claims to audiovisual works under Nigerian copyright law, as well as the significance of copyright registration.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot also <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/puma-v-euipo-posts-on-celebritys-social.html">discussed</a> </b>a dispute (<b><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=283501&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=823233">Case T‑647/22</a></b>) that arose after singer and businesswoman, Rihanna, posted photos on Instagram in 2014 to celebrate her appointment as creative director of the Puma brand. In the photos, Rihanna was wearing shoes that, more than 12 months later (i.e. outside the grace period), were the subject of an application to register a Community design. The EU General Court affirmed that the registered design was invalid. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Patents</h3><p style="text-align: left;">An anonymous Katfriend <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/guest-post-dramatic-reversal-in-crispr.html">reported</a></b> on the oral proceedings in the consolidated appeal of the cases on the Broad Institute's European platform patents for CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology (T 2360/19, T 2516/19 and T 2689/19). The Enlarged Board of Appeal had previously found (<b><a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/g220001ex1">G 1/22 and G 2/22</a></b>) that there is a strong rebuttable presumption that an applicant of a European patent application is entitled to claim priority. Despite the evidence from the opponents in the triple appeal, the Board accepted the validity of the claimed priorities - we await the written decision to understand why the presumption was not rebutted.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Intellectual Property and Tax</h3><p style="text-align: left;">Katfriend <b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/tmmoloto/?originalSubdomain=za">Thato Moloto</a></b> <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/guest-post-tax-court-of-south-africa.html">discussed</a></b> the recent decision from the Tax Court of South Africa about determining the market price at which a parent company would have charged its foreign subsidiaries for the use of intellectual property in market-based arm’s length negotiation.</p>Jocelyn Bossehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14966228076523914309noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3447125951519107052024-03-19T08:46:00.000+00:002024-03-19T08:46:15.245+00:00Discrepancies in the description should be amended in line with the claims, but do not affect interpretation of the claims (T 0447/22)<p><b><a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t220447eu1">T 0447/22</a> is another addition to the debate over how much the description of a patent should be used to interpret the claims. </b>The case considers two issues that may soon be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA): claim interpretation and adaptation of description. The Board of Appeal in this case found that inconsistencies between the description and the claims can be ignored in claim interpretation, whilst simultaneously defending the need for adaptation of the description to the claims for purposes of clarity. </p><p><b>Construing the claims in view of the description</b></p><p><a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t220447eu1"><b>T 0447/22</b></a> related to an opposition of the granted patent <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2425173A1/en?oq=EP2425173"><b>EP2425173</b></a> for a device for renovating pipes. The patentee also brought infringement proceedings in Germany against the opponent. Claim construction was a key issue in the opposition case. </p><p>Claim 1 as granted specified a "[a] machining device for machining the material of a pipe system". The device was defined as comprising a) protruding parts, b) means for removing a material and c) a steering device. A key question on appeal was the meaning of the term "steering device". The patentee argued that the steering device did not necessarily have to be different to the protruding parts. In support of this interpretation, the patentee pointed to parts of the description which mentioned that the protruding parts could also act to steer the device. According to the patentee, a claim did not require there to be a separate "steering device". </p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzujscMlGlobpZJ4WGbHrZqvQvDXn3luiKMZy5jHxh4xQiqKa64YhDJ7Haa383TyPwZYVbyrguODiHmRCY8Z8OrNhyphenhyphenpv2b0UY1yY5IpEmksJDT7lVetgvY6YHR7mHfty0qu7b-gUUHnFOUtnzCimu9YdwRZ7rHWVc6RW7ZNE8a0cFNZR2eyLxP/s1024/IMG_0472.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1024" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzujscMlGlobpZJ4WGbHrZqvQvDXn3luiKMZy5jHxh4xQiqKa64YhDJ7Haa383TyPwZYVbyrguODiHmRCY8Z8OrNhyphenhyphenpv2b0UY1yY5IpEmksJDT7lVetgvY6YHR7mHfty0qu7b-gUUHnFOUtnzCimu9YdwRZ7rHWVc6RW7ZNE8a0cFNZR2eyLxP/s320/IMG_0472.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Pipes</i></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The Board of Appeal noted the "extensive body of case law of the Boards of Appeal" according to which a claim may be interpreted with the help of the description (r. 13.1). It was clear to the Board of Appeal that "[t]t is a general principle applied throughout the EPC that a term of a claim can be interpreted only in context. The claims do not stand on their own, but together with the description and the drawings they are part of a unitary document, which must be read as a whole" (r. 13.1). </p><p>However, the Board of Appeal also noted that there are certain limits to this general principle that the claims should be interpreted together with the description. Namely, the description cannot be used to "read into the claim features appearing only in the description". In other words, the description cannot be used as a repository of definitions that can be used to change the meaning of otherwise clear claim language, as "<b>[t]his would not be to interpret claims but to rewrite them</b>" (r. 13.1). As such, "<b>in the event of a discrepancy between the claims and the description, those elements of the description not reflected in the claims are not, as a rule, to be taken into account for the examination of novelty and inventive step</b>" (r. 13.1).</p><p>In the case in question, the Board of Appeal found that the passages in the description indicating that the protruding parts may act as the steering device could not be used to alter the meaning of the claim. As such, for the Board of Appeal the term "steering device" in the claim required there to be "an actual physical component of the machining device which is adapted for actively controlling the direction of the machining" (r. 12). The claim language therefore required there to be protruding parts that were separate and distinct from a steering device. </p><p>In the national infringement proceedings, the claims were construed differently. The Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that the protruding parts specified in the claims <i>could</i> also be the steering device. However, the Board of Appeal did not think a decision by a national court was sufficient reason for it to alter its own conclusions (r. 13.7). The Board of Appeal concluded: "the present case is one where the interpretation of a claim in the light of the description reaches its limits". Particularly, incorporating into the claim the features provided in one embodiment described in the description could "only lead to a technically discrepant claim interpretation which the skilled person would be unwilling to adopt and would actually deprive the claims of their intended function" (13.6). </p><p>Under the interpretation of the main request by the Board of Appeal, claim 1 of the main request was found to lack novelty in view of the cited prior art. Claim amendments submitted as an auxiliary request were considered novel and inventive. </p><p><b>The requirement to adapt the description post-grant</b></p>The Board of Appeal also had to consider whether an auxiliary request submitted by the patentee should not be allowed because it was inconsistent with the description. The opponent particularly argued that the description should be amended in line with the Board's narrower interpretation of the claims, i.e. that the steering device should be physically distinct from the protruding parts specified in the claim. <div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a84.html"><b>Article 84 EPC</b></a> specifies that "the claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description". However, lack of clarity is not a ground of opposition, unless the lack of clarity arises as a result of post-grant amendments giving rise to new clarity issues (<a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/g140003ex1"><b>G 3/14</b></a>, EPO Guidelines for Examination, <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2024/d_v_5.html"><b>D-V-5</b></a>). In the present case, the Board of Appeal found that an objection in opposition under <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a84.html"><b>Article 84 EPC</b></a> is permissible if there is a lack of clarity because of a discrepancy between the claims and description resulting from a post-grant claim amendment. For the Board of Appeal, legal basis for adaptation of the description requirement <i>per se</i> could be found in <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a84.html"><b>Article 84 EPC</b></a>. For the Board of Appeal, "[t]here is a large body of case law developed by the Boards of Appeal [...] according to which <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a84.html"><b>Article 84 EPC</b></a> is the basis for bringing the description in line with the amended claims in order to avoid inconsistencies". <div><p style="text-align: left;">The opponent argued that the patentee had not made all the amendments necessary to the description required by the claim amendments of the auxiliary request. However, the Board of Appeal did not agree. For the Board of Appeal, the passages of the description identified by the opponent contained inconsistencies with the claims that were present on grant. As such, the lack of clarity did not newly arise as a result of the post-grant amendments. As such, the Board of Appeal found that the opponent's request to revoke the patent due to the absence of further amendments to the description, lacked legal basis and must be rejected (r. 86). </p><p style="text-align: left;">The Board of Appeal thus remitted the case to the opposition division with the order to maintain the patent as amended on the basis of the auxiliary request. </p><div><p><b>Final thoughts</b></p><p>The Board of Appeal in this case was unequivocal that, under the prevailing case law of the Boards of Appeal, inconsistencies between the description and the claims render the claims unclear under <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a84.html"><b>Article 84 EPC</b></a>. The decision in <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t220447eu1"><b>T 0447/22</b></a> nonetheless provides some comfort by confirming that a lack of conformity between the description and the claims cannot be used to revoke a granted patent if this lack of conformity existed at grant. We await the expected referral (or referrals) to the Enlarged Board of Appeal around the issues of adaptation of the description and claim interpretation. </p><p>Despite defending the need for the description to be amended in line with the claims under <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a84.html"><b>Article 84 EPC</b></a>, <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t220447eu1"><b>T 0447/22</b></a> also undermines the practical importance of such a requirement. The Board of Appeal admitted that "those elements of the description not reflected in the claims are not, as a rule, to be taken into account for the examination of novelty and inventive step". Therefore, whilst the Board of Appeal accepted that there were clear discrepancies between the granted claims and the description, leading to a lack of clarity under <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a84.html"><b>Article 84 EPC</b></a>, the Board of Appeal found that these discrepancies nonetheless had no impact on claim interpretation or the consequent validity of the patent. What mattered was the wording of the claims. If discrepancies between the description and the claims can be ignored in this way, why does the EPO continue to feel the need to get on its high horse about description amendments? </p><p><b>Further reading</b></p><p><b><i>Claim interpretation</i></b></p><p></p><ul><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/04/boeings-comma-drama-commas-and-taking.html?_sm_au_=iVVQ55DK0RqtT77DpGsWvKttvN1NG"><b>Boeing's comma drama: Commas and taking the description into account when construing a claim (T 1127/16)</b></a> (April 2021)</li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/01/another-case-of-catastrophic-comma-loss.html?_sm_au_=iVVQ55DK0RqtT77DpGsWvKttvN1NG"><b>Another case of catastrophic comma loss (T 1473/19): Interpreting the claims in view of the description</b></a> (Jan 2023)</li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/03/epo-tries-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it.html?_sm_au_=iVVQ55DK0RqtT77DpGsWvKttvN1NG"><b>EPO tries to have its cake and eat it on claim interpretation (T 0169/20</b></a>) (March 2023)</li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/construing-claims-to-include-technical.html"><b>Construing the claims to include technical effects mentioned in the description (T 1924/20)</b></a> (April 2023)</li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-risk-of-pre-grant-description.html"><b>The risk of pre-grant description amendments (T 450/20)</b></a> (July 2023)</li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/11/benefits-and-pitfalls-of-functional.html"><b>Benefits and pitfalls of functional patent claims (and why the UK is out of step with the EPO on claim construction): Astellas v Teva [2023] EWHC 2571 (Pat)</b></a> (Nov 2023)</li><li><b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/will-we-have-referral-on-using.html?_sm_au_=iVVJ7BWH5rq03qvQpGsWvKttvN1NG">Will we have a referral on using the description for claim interpretation or is the Board of Appeal jumping the gun? (T 439/22)</a> </b>(Jan 2024)</li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/dont-shoot-yourself-in-foot-european.html?_sm_au_=iVVJ7BWH5rq03qvQpGsWvKttvN1NG"><b>Don't shoot yourself in the foot: European file history in US patent claim interpretation (K-fee v Nespresso)</b></a> (Jan 2024)</li></ul><p><b><i>Description amendments</i></b><br /></p><div><ul><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/12/breaking-board-of-appeal-finds-no-legal.html?_sm_au_=iVVHSMZ1HW4DLqL7pGsWvKttvN1NG" style="color: #12043d; font-family: inherit; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;"><b style="font-family: inherit; outline: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">Board of Appeal finds no legal basis for the requirement to amend the description in line with the claims (T1989/18)</b><span style="color: #010101; font-family: inherit; outline: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;"> (Dec 2021)</span></a></li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/01/can-amending-description-to-summarize.html" style="color: #12043d; font-family: inherit; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;"><b style="font-family: inherit; outline: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">Can amending the description to summarize the prior art add matter to the patent application as filed? (T 0471/20)</b><span style="color: #010101; font-family: inherit; outline: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;"> (Jan 2022)</span></a></li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/04/epo-board-of-appeal-tows-party-line-on.html" style="color: #12043d; font-family: inherit; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;"><b style="font-family: inherit; outline: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">EPO Board of Appeal toes the party-line on description amendments (T 1024/18)</b><span style="color: #010101; font-family: inherit; outline: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;"> (April 2022)</span></a></li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/11/another-board-of-appeal-enters-fray-on.html" style="color: #12043d; font-family: inherit; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;"><b style="outline: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">Board of Appeal case law against the description amendment requirement starts to mount up (T 2194/19)</b><span style="outline: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;"><span style="outline: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;"> (16 Nov 2022)</span></span></a></li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/11/another-board-of-appeal-enters-fray-on.html" style="color: #12043d; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;"><b style="outline: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">Another Board of Appeal enters the fray on description amendments (T 3097/19)</b></a> (Nov 2022)</li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/07/board-of-appeal-poised-on-brink-of.html"><b>Board of Appeal poised on the brink of a referral on description amendments (T 56/21)</b></a> (July 2023)</li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html"><b>Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)</b></a> (Aug 2023)</li><li><b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/11/referral-on-description-amendments.html?_sm_au_=iVVJ7BWH5rq03qvQpGsWvKttvN1NG">Referral on description amendments moves one step closer (T 56/21)</a></b> (Nov 2023)</li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/deletion-of-claim-like-clauses-board-of.html?_sm_au_=iVVZM2J3QVWj331jpGsWvKttvN1NG"><b>Deletion of claim-like clauses: Board of Appeal finds legal basis for adaptation of the description from "the EPC as a whole" (T 0438/22)</b></a> (Jan 2024)</li></ul></div></div></div></div>Rose Hugheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04232611463781544102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-83004963750604307582024-03-18T18:41:00.006+00:002024-03-18T18:44:45.062+00:00Book review & discount code: Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union<p>This is a review of the second edition of <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/copyright-and-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-9780198885580?cc=gb&lang=en& " target="_blank"><b>Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union</b></a>, by PermaKat Professor Eleonora Rosati, who is Full Professor of IP Law at Stockholm University and Of Counsel at Bird & Bird. </p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht8Jmn4ZiHUHRoxDTh67n_YY6-GAJHgGN7zq5P6Yw2BdA1BNjGzBsia6U1-qWCaJW6dz__7GuygF0HYpVWrDLCpEKTp1zqwwaFE-7nSWwBFZv7VZDD5SCW-R8WGu-wyFyr2d6eSDaEH72hlhmJECz2kbOPOFosILmlG09EXD3g_s99yFsjcWDiRw/s3834/IMG_5450.jpeg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3834" data-original-width="2940" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht8Jmn4ZiHUHRoxDTh67n_YY6-GAJHgGN7zq5P6Yw2BdA1BNjGzBsia6U1-qWCaJW6dz__7GuygF0HYpVWrDLCpEKTp1zqwwaFE-7nSWwBFZv7VZDD5SCW-R8WGu-wyFyr2d6eSDaEH72hlhmJECz2kbOPOFosILmlG09EXD3g_s99yFsjcWDiRw/s320/IMG_5450.jpeg" width="245" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> </td></tr></tbody></table><p>This book was voted by readers as the winner of the <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/ipkat-book-of-year-awards-2023-winners.html" target="_blank">IPKat’s Book of the Year Award</a></b> for best copyright book 2023! A launch event for its publication was hosted by UCL’s Institute of Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL), involving a panel discussion of themes from the book with The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Richard Arnold (Royal Courts of Justice), Professor Uma Suthersanen (Queen Mary University of London), Nicholas Saunders KC (Brick Court Chambers), and chaired by The Rt Hon Professor Sir Robin Jacob (UCL). Readers can watch the recording <b><a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events/2023/nov/recording-copyright-and-cjeu " target="_blank">here</a></b>. </p><p>New to this second edition of Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union is fully updated case law of the CJEU, a new chapter on subsistence requirements, and revised chapters on the legacy of CJEU case law on post-Brexit UK copyright and the interplay between CJEU case law and policy and legislative action in the Digital Single Market. Rosati explains in the introduction<i> “a lot has happened in the EU copyright field since 2019. All this has warranted a new edition of the book, which is significantly longer than - and hopefully a substantial improvement on – the 2019 edition.”</i></p><p>The goal of the book is to<i> “provide readers with a sense of direction of EU copyright case law.”</i> It achieves this in three parts, with nine chapters jam packed with detailed and comprehensive analysis on the role of the CJEU, its vision and its legacy.</p><p>Part One focuses on the role of the CJEU as an EU institution. Chapter one begins with an overview of the EU harmonisation project, and discusses the composition, role and functioning of the Court. It then provides a table of 109 copyright decisions, pointing to the case names, dates, and areas of law. These cases form the basis of data analysis on the activity of the Court such as number of referrals, referring countries, the judiciary personnel, as well as cases decided with or without AG Opinions and analyses the importance of those Opinions in Court decisions. Chapter two focuses on the standards employed in CJEU case law, undertaking detailed statistical analysis to demonstrate the drivers that contribute to the approach of the Court. </p><p>Part Two informs us on the action and vision of the CJEU in four key areas. There are five chapters in this part, beginning with chapter three which outlines a clear trend that has emerged at the level of CJEU case law over the past several years [no spoilers!]. Chapter four covers the requirements for protection, chapter five the construction of exclusive rights, chapter six exceptions and limitations, and chapter seven enforcement.</p><p>The third part then turns to the legacy of the CJEU. Chapter eight discusses the impact of CJEU case law on national copyright regimes and in particular focuses on the UK as a former Member State. As Rosati explains <i>“prior to the completion of Brexit, the UK courts relied upon and applied CJEU case law and, in doing so, changed their approaches to key concepts… As of today, no departure has yet occurred from CJEU case law,” </i>emphasising that whilst a clean break from EU copyright law may be possible in principle it is <i>“hardly realistic / feasible in a short – or even medium – term” </i>without statutory amendments. </p><p>Lastly, chapter nine considers recent copyright reform initiatives. It focuses on selected provisions in the DSM Directive and reflects on the relevance of CJEU case law to the EU copyright reform discourse.</p><p>This book is essential reading for any researchers and practitioners engaging with EU copyright law. As Advocate General Maciej Szpunar says in the foreword </p><p></p><blockquote style="text-align: center;">This extremely profound analysis by Professor Rosati of EU copyright protection and relevant Court of Justice decisions constitutes unchartered territory, unveiling new information, and presenting ideas, which will serve academics and practitioners.</blockquote><p></p><p>Readers can benefit from a 30% discount using the code ALAUTHC4 on the <b><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/" target="_blank">OUP website</a></b>.</p><p><u>Details</u></p><p>Publisher: <b><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/" target="_blank">Oxford University Press</a></b></p><p>Available in Hardback and Ebook</p><p>Extent: 512 Pages</p><p>ISBN: 9780198885580</p>Hayleigh Bosherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17056592290483048564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3342039769210309362024-03-18T16:58:00.000+00:002024-03-18T16:58:31.782+00:00I spy with my little eye… <div>You can probably understand the following text because of an effect called <a href="https://www.classes.cs.uchicago.edu/archive/2022/winter/11111-1/typoglycemia/index.html"><b>typoglycemia</b></a>: <br /><blockquote>Aoccdrnig to a rscheearcher at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. </blockquote>But what about the following ‘word’? <br /><br /></div> <div style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyU2gUWk89PTVvAy2VG2EzhnkGxWsd3YbSwx9iqgnn6I6ETrCm7IGVjroSu9NU6DQ_BH3i8I99dIw_kmAjAAYeUJOAP25etnEXk0T62M4ZE6mjSy8FrEVJKGuxsECWqkjscmbvcJtHzwhh96lInC8hQKEYfMEFE9_xt5WkXy-cmveXHsFWsVVZ/s744/h1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="744" height="83" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyU2gUWk89PTVvAy2VG2EzhnkGxWsd3YbSwx9iqgnn6I6ETrCm7IGVjroSu9NU6DQ_BH3i8I99dIw_kmAjAAYeUJOAP25etnEXk0T62M4ZE6mjSy8FrEVJKGuxsECWqkjscmbvcJtHzwhh96lInC8hQKEYfMEFE9_xt5WkXy-cmveXHsFWsVVZ/w183-h83/h1.jpg" width="183" /></a></div><br /></div><div>The car company HD HYUNDAI CO., LTD. (‘Hyundai’) considered the sign to resemble its well-known trade name and trade mark in lower case letters, namely ‘hyundai’. <br /><br /> <b>Background </b><br /><br />On 3 December 2021, Global Trade Services, Inc. (‘GTS’) filed for registration of EU trade mark no. <b><a href="https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/018615959">018615959</a></b> for the sign depicted above. Registration was sought for various goods in class 9, including ‘home security cameras; touchscreens; robots with artificial intelligence’. <br /><br />Hyundai filed an opposition on the basis of five national trade marks registered in Benelux, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal for the figurative mark and the word mark ‘HYUNDAI’, covering, inter alia, goods in class 9, including ‘digital cameras; digital information display [DID]’. <br /><br />The Opposition Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) rejected the opposition. Hyundai appealed. <br /><br /> <b>The Board of Appeal’s decision </b><br /><br />The EUIPO’s Board of Appeal (‘BoA’) dismissed the appeal (<b><a href="https://euipo.europa.eu/copla/trademark/data/01861595/download/CLW/APL/2024/EN/20240219_R1147_2023-1.pdf?app=esearch&casenum=R1147/2023-1&trTypeDoc=NA">R1147/2023-1</a></b>). <br /><br />It held that the relevant public consists of the general public and professionals with an average to high level of attention. <br /><br />The BoA found the signs to be dissimilar. As regards the contested signs, consumers will not be able to perceive any letters but only vertical bars of different heights, two of which have dots. The later mark will not immediately and without any mental effort be recognised as ‘hyundai’. The sign is missing horizontal lines, which are an essential component of the normal graphic representation of the word ‘hyundai’. It is much more probable that the sign is recognised only as the combination of some basic figurative elements. Only after an in-depth analysis, which consumers do not tend to perform, might a very stylised representation of the word ‘hyundai’ be perceived. The contested mark is more likely to be understood as an abstract and unitary shape, especially because ‘hyundai’ has no obvious meaning for the goods in question, which could help consumers to identify it in the contested sign. <br /><br />Hyundai argued that the publication of the contested mark referenced <a href="https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/vienna-classification"><b>Vienna</b></a> class 27.05.25, which covers ‘letters presenting some other special form of writing’. The BoA rejected this argument because the classification does not show the perception of the relevant public. <br /><br />The BoA considered the fact that the contested trade mark may have been developed based on the word ‘hyundai’ to be irrelevant because the public would still have to engage in a highly imaginative cognitive process in order to decipher the sign. Likewise, any dishonest intent on the part of GTS was found to be irrelevant in opposition proceedings. <br /><br />Hyundai claimed that the contested sign will immediately be perceived as the word ‘hyundai’ because this trademark is the 35th most valuable brand in the world and has been used for 55 years. The BoA dismissed this argument. A lack of similarity cannot be overcome by a high level of distinctiveness. <br /><br />On that basis, the signs were found to be visually dissimilar. A phonetic and conceptual comparison was not possible. Therefore, the opposition failed. <br /><br /><b> Comment </b><br /><br />The BoA’s decision is supported by artificial intelligence. After uploading a picture of GTS’ sign to Google’s <a href="https://gemini.google.com/app"><b>Gemini</b></a> and asking “What is the picture about?”, Gemini replied: <br /><blockquote>The image you sent me appears to be a trademark image filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It depicts a blue logo on a white background, but without any additional context, it is impossible to say for certain what the logo represents or what company or organization it belongs to. […] </blockquote>The more leading question “Can you read a word in the picture?” resulted in the following (rather creative) response: <br /><blockquote>No, I cannot read a word in the image. The logo is a stylized blue bird with its wings outstretched, facing to the right. There are no letters or words within the design itself. </blockquote>Highly stylised letters and words are challenging to attack and defend before the EU instances. The General Court confirmed that the top part of the following sign <br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"> <br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggUBf_IdMFpoX0NiMGcv9D4TrTnOZziF-VEsqBUGHH9QbiI4u-JjPqMn9COfneYoFiB91cSp_VmVi18b8CaQ8fKF9o_fE6W9y5NMBd-hFByc8NQ-J5IklM5PHOpGzdSVKBHQE-MlvOi2qrXGYzvtJ3-o1eVmdltU1IpZh450uWVlkbNaHV9XSC/s238/h3.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="238" data-original-width="238" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggUBf_IdMFpoX0NiMGcv9D4TrTnOZziF-VEsqBUGHH9QbiI4u-JjPqMn9COfneYoFiB91cSp_VmVi18b8CaQ8fKF9o_fE6W9y5NMBd-hFByc8NQ-J5IklM5PHOpGzdSVKBHQE-MlvOi2qrXGYzvtJ3-o1eVmdltU1IpZh450uWVlkbNaHV9XSC/s1600/h3.jpg" width="238" /></a></div><br /><div>will not be perceived as the letters ‘IJTI’ because of their highly stylised depiction (case <b><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=DFFE0294793F47956D05757E9343A391?text=&docid=221777&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5994455">T‑743/18</a></b>). Likewise, the sign <br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"> <br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3pZlYbb7L67yKm3uAMPgV6LKbfe6o5n9F903pOTEgIQ7PZy280FtJJLJbo8WYKuSzP_WZIjRNZSunCmPRIZlH9L72yvODdXmqZ4DN3FyQjt1DIe6O5FhPgEmQlseuGS9ElPvlz6yIZc2YgLizW9XpI4tuYCUs2eNmdPhZYjW1Q4EGMH94h_j6/s153/h4.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="86" data-original-width="153" height="86" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3pZlYbb7L67yKm3uAMPgV6LKbfe6o5n9F903pOTEgIQ7PZy280FtJJLJbo8WYKuSzP_WZIjRNZSunCmPRIZlH9L72yvODdXmqZ4DN3FyQjt1DIe6O5FhPgEmQlseuGS9ElPvlz6yIZc2YgLizW9XpI4tuYCUs2eNmdPhZYjW1Q4EGMH94h_j6/s1600/h4.jpg" width="153" /></a></div><br /><div>will not be understood as ‘KIO’ but rather as an arrow pointing to the left followed by the number ‘10’ or the letters ‘IO’ (case <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=218007&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5995632"><b>T-67/19</b></a>). Even the following sign was not considered to be perceived as ‘fly’ (case <b><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=197308&pageIndex=0&doclang=DE&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5996657">T-475/16</a></b>): <br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBmZHElrZj5yLyQcXuJ0EvPmAzTn0dQ9V25OcDRjELdxLjoODudcZB-1i3wHq4wMjH8BnLGXEi9eFickq979L6rGNnluifuwJrBr15LcznHI2iI1m-DnMdDqhGuVmA2dxN9h5lmkTQmjKuRlzUkyVQySQZBnJoxcmyzkGET0uSTD3FJrBD7W_A/s193/h5.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="120" data-original-width="193" height="120" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBmZHElrZj5yLyQcXuJ0EvPmAzTn0dQ9V25OcDRjELdxLjoODudcZB-1i3wHq4wMjH8BnLGXEi9eFickq979L6rGNnluifuwJrBr15LcznHI2iI1m-DnMdDqhGuVmA2dxN9h5lmkTQmjKuRlzUkyVQySQZBnJoxcmyzkGET0uSTD3FJrBD7W_A/s1600/h5.jpg" width="193" /></a></div><div>If you can immediately read a word in the following sign, your perception is better than that of the average consumer, according to the General Court in case <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=239259&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5997235"><b>T-354/20</b></a>: <br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"> <br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span><a name='more'></a></span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5CzYr2RxdYKdGKZa8XHv7saajhAc3wq0Chl6t_2TIu0kkw60iezluURMAzZcFahraFjTSeO4Lc7tOdE9Wnjymp89AFrbGSsmMQv_yCsQNMakyrsndu_3xpAGK8k7UgN-dWbmmYSlmacQeCZITcnL1WDTVBfzc6kzngmfdokoUJJoZPqSfRkPG/s220/h6.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="127" data-original-width="220" height="127" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5CzYr2RxdYKdGKZa8XHv7saajhAc3wq0Chl6t_2TIu0kkw60iezluURMAzZcFahraFjTSeO4Lc7tOdE9Wnjymp89AFrbGSsmMQv_yCsQNMakyrsndu_3xpAGK8k7UgN-dWbmmYSlmacQeCZITcnL1WDTVBfzc6kzngmfdokoUJJoZPqSfRkPG/s1600/h6.jpg" width="220" /></a></div><br /><div>These examples should caution branding teams (and the lawyers advising them) when creating new logos. One should not just consider whether the target consumer understands the sign without much mental effort but also if examiners at trade mark offices and judges will immediately understand it. Survey evidence might be helpful to convince the EUIPO that a sign is understood as a particular word. <br /><br />The BoA’s finding that the increased level of distinctiveness of the ‘Hyundai’ trademark is not decisive in the assessment of the similarity of the signs should be treated with caution. The relevant public’s familiarity with a trade mark can shape its perception and might make it easier to recognise the earlier mark in the contested sign. Therefore, an increased level of distinctiveness might be relevant when assessing the similarity of the signs. </div>Marcel Pemselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06609359474931860987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-73835952777325341012024-03-17T16:26:00.004+00:002024-03-17T21:40:19.059+00:00Weekend read: The (many) copyright questions in Kate Middleton’s Mother’s Day manipulated image<div style="text-align: justify;">Over the past week, there has only been one deserving topic of discussion: the picture that was <a href="https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1766750995445387393"><b>published</b></a> from the official social media accounts of The Prince and Princess of Wales to mark Mother’s Day (which in the UK was celebrated on 10 March last) and depicting Kate Middleton together with her three children:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnFNvXt9npv4x0T5l8hiplBnLUqxlrsXrb_jDBBHRby8bh_kvr6_Vk4V1XxvgwjZuJaNZl93AAsUCqfl7limm_vYUnMb-ON80tWtmoflTm18E8b5lfgTTF15BvbWP-wfAdQenNkdBoRh41jXKREZjAZGTrN0bIAx3I0Bwew6JOQehWSZx2JYvorA/s2048/GITCqi7WsAAxXEF.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1366" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnFNvXt9npv4x0T5l8hiplBnLUqxlrsXrb_jDBBHRby8bh_kvr6_Vk4V1XxvgwjZuJaNZl93AAsUCqfl7limm_vYUnMb-ON80tWtmoflTm18E8b5lfgTTF15BvbWP-wfAdQenNkdBoRh41jXKREZjAZGTrN0bIAx3I0Bwew6JOQehWSZx2JYvorA/s320/GITCqi7WsAAxXEF.jpeg" width="213" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The photograph was much anticipated as it would have been the first official image of Kate Middleton to be released since she underwent abdominal surgery last January.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">When published, attribution of the photograph (marked by the use of the <img alt="📸" aria-label="📸" class="an1" data-emoji="📸" draggable="false" loading="lazy" src="https://fonts.gstatic.com/s/e/notoemoji/15.0/1f4f8/32.png" style="background-color: white; color: #073763; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 16px; height: 1.2em; vertical-align: middle; width: 1.2em;" /> emoji) was to “The Prince of Wales, 2024”.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What happened next is well known: the major news and photo organizations issued a ‘kill notice’ regarding the photograph (see <a href="https://apnews.com/article/princess-wales-kate-surgery-photo-manipulated-3863e9ac78aec420a91e4f315297c348"><b>here</b></a>) because the image appeared to have been manipulated.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">All this resulted in yet another official communication from Kensington Palace, in which Kate <a href="https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1767135566645092616"><b>admitted</b></a> the photograph’s manipulation by stating: “Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing. I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">While the conspiracy theories regarding Kate’s real condition and reasons for 'radio silence' abound – ranging from rumours of an extramarital affair of Prince William to Kate undergoing plastic surgery – it has emerged that the editing done on the photograph might be overall very extensive and such as to make the image more correctly characterizable as a work of digital art or even a collage rather than a photograph.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Among other things, it has been <a href="https://pagesix.com/2024/03/11/royal-family/fan-suspects-kate-middleton-used-2016-vogue-cover-to-create-botched-post-surgery-photo/"><b>suggested</b></a> that Kate’s face would have been actually lifted from the 2016 <i>Vogue UK</i> cover realized by <b><a href="https://josholins.com/">Josh Olins</a>:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiI1l-tNkfGENNkrT5rIdM27gwH6804c1-0D39NDOhcbCjiJh6ELmZ-S8V_VbXjIcmZhaBUCdgRojfW8qcqoCxHSysKAAdCfKlXsfsZciE926u0fSy50I3uLyUhV_Y33BlaLbvgq_vi3SatV3b_EQlqEaQp568QQaptbD3YLUar1N7JLm3839iHg/s2048/catherine-duchess-cambridge-poses-norfolk-78211231.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1581" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiI1l-tNkfGENNkrT5rIdM27gwH6804c1-0D39NDOhcbCjiJh6ELmZ-S8V_VbXjIcmZhaBUCdgRojfW8qcqoCxHSysKAAdCfKlXsfsZciE926u0fSy50I3uLyUhV_Y33BlaLbvgq_vi3SatV3b_EQlqEaQp568QQaptbD3YLUar1N7JLm3839iHg/s320/catherine-duchess-cambridge-poses-norfolk-78211231.webp" width="247" /></a></div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEJVuWhDnkoK_QQJU9fT3u_VS4RhAfkl7jRCYIK7a0sRTPScv21hsHAlwndf05T8aEWH1c7NWHRueU-TOckmSJd2iK0Nwz3eeF6C8fSz5q5JBquwwJhaAJSESDBDkPn9tk6BKl4oQ0eXEuNUDrAe-w5TaFJhf0vEEt2xoMheMaIEErUYDKOviAJQ/s1280/kate-vogue-photoshop-1280x720.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEJVuWhDnkoK_QQJU9fT3u_VS4RhAfkl7jRCYIK7a0sRTPScv21hsHAlwndf05T8aEWH1c7NWHRueU-TOckmSJd2iK0Nwz3eeF6C8fSz5q5JBquwwJhaAJSESDBDkPn9tk6BKl4oQ0eXEuNUDrAe-w5TaFJhf0vEEt2xoMheMaIEErUYDKOviAJQ/w400-h225/kate-vogue-photoshop-1280x720.png" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">All that said and pending further, unavoidable developments in this royal saga, the Mother’s Day royal photograph would make an excellent problem question for any IP professor and lecturer looking for ideas for a copyright examination paper. So here are some copyright angles to think further about.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Who’s the author of the image(s)?</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">The first question is prompted by Kensington Palace’s (clumsy) moves themselves: is Prince William (as initially declared) the author of the image or is it rather Kate Middleton (as subsequently admitted with regard to the editing activity)?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here two follow-up questions may be raised.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">First, if the author is not Prince William, could the initial statement by Kensington Palace trigger the application of <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/84"><b>section 84 CDPA</b></a> and the moral right protecting against false attribution of a work? That appears tricky since the right is enforceable against someone who inter alia “issues to the public copies of a work of any of those descriptions in or on which there is a false attribution”. If it is true that the social media accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales are officially their own, then Prince William could have a claim against Kate but obviously not against himself.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Secondly, accepting that William did indeed author the initial image, can then Kate be regarded as the author of the subsequent edited image, with the result that the latter would qualify as a ‘derivative work’?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">That would be certainly a possibility as not only the <a href="https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283698#P85_10661"><b>Berne Convention</b></a> (Article 2(3)) mandates the protection of inter alia “other alterations of … artistic work”, but derivative works have been also held protectable under UK law (think of the famous <b><a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/565.html"><i>Hyperion Records v Sawkins</i></a> [IPKat <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/search/max-results=7?q=sawkins">here</a>] </b>as an example). This, of course, would be the case provided that that the alteration in question satisfies the requirements for protection. Hence:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div> <h3 style="text-align: justify;">Are the images protectable?</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">It should be stated at the outset that, when the UK transposed the <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006L0116"><b>Term Directive</b></a>, it decided not to take advantage of the possibility under Article 6 therein to protect photographs not only under copyright (and thus subject to a requirement of originality intended as “author’s own intellectual creation”) but also by means of what in continental Europe would be known as neighbouring and related rights (which are not known as such under UK copyright).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Under UK law, the only possibility for photographs is thus to receive protection upon fulfilling the originality requirement.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As readers know, under UK law and because of the effects of EU membership, originality has gone from being akin to “sufficient skill, labour or effort” to being intended in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), that is as “author’s own intellectual creation”, the result of “free and creative choices” so that the work carries the “personal touch” of the author.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Most recently, and despite Brexit, it was <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/11/originality-in-copyright-law-objective.html"><b>reiterated</b></a> that:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">What is required is that the author was able to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with their personal touch […] This criterion is not satisfied where the content of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints which leave no room for creative freedom […]</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">So, assuming that we have two images here (Prince William’s photograph and Kate’s edited version), we could have two copyrights:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><ul><li>The first would be the copyright in Prince William’s initial photograph. To this end, it would have been necessary for him to have made “free and creative choices” at different stages of the photograph’s creation, in accordance with the guidance provided by the CJEU in <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?&num=C-145/10"><b><i>Painer</i></b></a>;</li><li>The second would be the copyright in Kate’s edited version (which, at this point, could be a digital artwork or a collage). In this sense, the more “creative” (and extensive) her edits, the better under copyright. Incidentally, the CJEU has been asked to indicate how to assess originality in derivative works in the pending referral in<i> </i><b><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?nat=or&mat=or&pcs=Oor&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-649%252F23&for=&jge=&dates=&language=en&pro=&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&oqp=&td=%3BALL&avg=&lgrec=en&page=1&lg=&cid=3307685"><i>Institutul G. Călinescu</i></a> [IPKat <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/when-is-derivative-work-original-and.html">here</a>]</b>.</li></ul><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Who owns the copyright(s) to the image(s)?</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">Another intriguing question is whether this would be a situation in which Crown copyright applies.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Under <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/163"><b>section 163 CDPA</b></a>, “Where a work is made by [His] Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties— (a)the work qualifies for copyright protection notwithstanding section 153(1) (ordinary requirement as to qualification for copyright protection), and (b)[His] Majesty is the first owner of any copyright in the work.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj306Oj_QKcLslkOBLCatKb5R9q841ndimX1-AilW_2nmA1OftqhN17P6xqypDURnCzi78wgnCoeafYuY5KYVudIXXcGrXhNdMa8nRjNPOOPHiAY2d_LKcV9xT05T92_PtR_jwxAtzXY7YRf2n07bwS_1eevVKPzA_Yhn476MFCtZU800WsWjDqnQ/s850/Cat-Cat_Guide-An_adult_cat_cleaning_her_kittens_coat.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="793" data-original-width="850" height="299" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj306Oj_QKcLslkOBLCatKb5R9q841ndimX1-AilW_2nmA1OftqhN17P6xqypDURnCzi78wgnCoeafYuY5KYVudIXXcGrXhNdMa8nRjNPOOPHiAY2d_LKcV9xT05T92_PtR_jwxAtzXY7YRf2n07bwS_1eevVKPzA_Yhn476MFCtZU800WsWjDqnQ/s320/Cat-Cat_Guide-An_adult_cat_cleaning_her_kittens_coat.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>IPKat-approved Mother's Day image<br /></i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>There is little doubt that the Prince and Princess of Wales are Senior Royals and may be regarded as “officers or servants of the Crown”, but the question here is whether the realization and publication of the images (whether it’s the original photograph or the edited version) could be regarded as something that pertains to their “duties” in such a capacity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Is the realization and publication of social media content something that qualifies as the Royals’ own (professional) duties? A royal watcher (or employment lawyer) could perhaps tell …</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">And what about the alleged reproduction of Josh Olins’ photograph?</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">And, last but not least (at least for this weekend), another juicy issue: the alleged lifting of the <i>Vogue UK</i> cover. If that was true, could such a reproduction be regarded as prima facie infringing and, if so, could it qualify for the application of any defence under copyright law?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Starting with prima facie infringement, there seems to be little doubt that the reproduction of the entire face of a person portrayed in a portrait photograph (the photo is mostly … them!) would be relevant under copyright law. To establish prima facie infringement under UK law:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><ul><li>A claimant needs to demonstrate – in accordance with <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/16"><b>section 16 CDPA</b></a> – that the defendant has done any of the restricted acts in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it. The notion of ‘substantial taking’ should not be intended in a quantitative sense (see as early as <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd001123/design-1.htm"><b><i>Designers Guild</i></b></a>).</li><li>In light of the CJEU decision in <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-5/08"><b><i>Infopaq</i></b></a> (which, before being a case about originality, is a case about infringement and remains good law even in post-Brexit UK) it is apparent that there is “substantial taking” of a work when what is being reproduced is sufficiently original in the sense of being its author’s own intellectual creation.</li></ul><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Could a defence apply?</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">Parody under <b><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/30A">section 30A CDPA</a> </b>would be excluded at the outset given that the image is not an expression of humour or mockery (as instead required under <b><i><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-201/13">Deckmyn</a> </i>[IPKat <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/search/max-results=7?q=deckmyn">here</a>]</b>).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The same would go for quotation under <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/30"><b>section 30(1ZA) CDPA</b></a> given that, if anything, no acknowledgment of the original source has been provided. Recently, in <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Pasternak-v-Prescott-judgment-251022.pdf"><b><i>Pasternark</i></b></a>, the quotation defence was held inapplicable exactly because of the lack of acknowledgment of the source.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">At this point, the seeming jolly of copyright law comes to mind: pastiche. While the CJEU will need to clarify the meaning thereof in the upcoming <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=280300&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1611716"><b><i>Pelham II</i> judgment</b></a>, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) has already had a chance to interpret the notion of pastiche.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In <b><a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/IPEC/2022/1379.html"><i>Shazam</i></a> [IPKat <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/06/uk-court-discusses-copyright-protection.html">here</a>]</b>, John Kimbell KC held that pastiche entails the imitation of the style of pre-existing works and the use or assemblage of pre-existing works in new works, and also needs to be noticeably different from the original work. In the case at hand, based on this, it might be well arguable that Kate’s edits qualify for the defence.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">However, in his <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208881&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1607284"><b>Opinion</b></a> in <i>Pelham I</i>, Advocate General Szpunar appeared to suggest that pastiche – like quotation, caricature and parody – should be in any event justified by the intention of entering into a dialogue with an earlier work or protected subject-matter and/or the ideas conveyed therein. If the dialogue requirement was – correctly – given normative weight, then the pastiche defence would be likely inapplicable in the case at hand.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In sum: it is not only conspiracy theories about Kate to abound, but also copyright issues ... Happy start of the week to all IPKat readers!</div>Eleonora Rosatihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-58253764338312874552024-03-17T14:59:00.003+00:002024-03-17T19:13:38.830+00:00Old bottles for "New Certan"? Bordeaux wine producer brings unsuccessful passing off claim in the Australian Federal Court<p><b>In the latest dispute between European and Australian wine producers</b>, a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia has found that a Tasmanian wine producer had not passed off its "New Certan" wine as being connected or associated with the Bordeaux wine estate, Vieux Château Certan (VCC). </p><p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEAQuQEe3D9-2gfQXR4IuDbvFNRfKQ2xExdeDJ-LZboQrEDfylvnpWJHZZ8ugA1cJ8floJ22ZFe8cY2XLKofPmqgmE93NG80mbKKmXF6VTnSb-5YPsVWxYxxL7iECPiuARBYXMGQQgCh7qd3yrifzBCtChI78NUXWmf8kU427SioRmvW8mW_5ygg/s1497/shopping-venture-2470566_1280.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="color: black;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1404" data-original-width="1497" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEAQuQEe3D9-2gfQXR4IuDbvFNRfKQ2xExdeDJ-LZboQrEDfylvnpWJHZZ8ugA1cJ8floJ22ZFe8cY2XLKofPmqgmE93NG80mbKKmXF6VTnSb-5YPsVWxYxxL7iECPiuARBYXMGQQgCh7qd3yrifzBCtChI78NUXWmf8kU427SioRmvW8mW_5ygg/s320/shopping-venture-2470566_1280.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sniffing out new wine in old bottles.<br />Image from Alexas_Fotos via Pixabay</td></tr></tbody></table>The French wine producer brought a claim alleging contraventions of ss 18 & 29(1)(g)-(h) of the <b><a href="https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/sch2.html">Australian Consumer Law</a> </b>and the tort of passing off. The judgment of Justice Beach in <i>Societe Civile et Agricole du Vieux Chateau Certan v Kreglinger (Australia) Pty Ltd</i> <span><b><a href="https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0248">[2024] FCA 248</a></b></span> found that there was no damage, and therefore passing off was not established. VCC also failed to have the NEW CERTAN trade mark registration cancelled.<p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Background</h3><p>The Societe Civile et Agricole du Vieux Château Certan (VCC) is the owner of a wine estate located in Pomerol in the Bordeaux region of France. Importantly for this case, VCC produces two types of expensive French red wine involving various up-market grape types. For decades, the packaging of "Vieux Château Certan" and "La Gravette de Certan" included a pink capsule with gold decoration (see photos below), a label featuring the name Certan, and an image of a stately house located on the VCC wine estate, amongst other features (such as the font).</p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj53V9k_qAd5JZZ0VRZgBw35wkbnhJCx1BbsHgpNDYvG6Zqc6FfYaqfOZDmXrbSCLXUH_nnoitgm3yCKq-GOZ3c51rSXuGzCicWkP0ENDkaBGkF2C8TyTmNVLXqu6vdiJ4nCKKDpccgqq32mBcO88d04Su5e-i6TBl0xV1OugHNoshfDCYgEEK9Og/s1390/Old%20Certan.png" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1176" data-original-width="1390" height="271" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj53V9k_qAd5JZZ0VRZgBw35wkbnhJCx1BbsHgpNDYvG6Zqc6FfYaqfOZDmXrbSCLXUH_nnoitgm3yCKq-GOZ3c51rSXuGzCicWkP0ENDkaBGkF2C8TyTmNVLXqu6vdiJ4nCKKDpccgqq32mBcO88d04Su5e-i6TBl0xV1OugHNoshfDCYgEEK9Og/s320/Old%20Certan.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The overall presentation of the wines and close-ups <br />of the pink capsules on "Vieux Château Certan"<br />and "La Gravette de Certan" </td></tr></tbody></table>The first respondent, Kreglinger (Australia) Pty Ltd, has been registered as a company in Australia since 1914. Kreglinger's first vintage of the wine promoted and sold as "New Certan" was the 2011 vintage, released in 2013. The evidence showed that "New Certan" is a cheaper Pinot Noir produced in Tasmania that sells for AU$75 to $95 per bottle, as compared with the expensive VCC wine produced from Merlot, Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon grapes, which sells for AU$600 to $800 per bottle.<p></p><p>The director and CEO of Kreglinger, Paul de Moor, gave evidence that he wanted to pay homage to his family heritage (being descended from the Thienpont family, who run VCC) with the marketing of "New Certan". For the earliest vintages, the label depicted the de Moor family home on their vineyard in Tasmania. The label designer had received photos of VCC bottles and instruction from de Moor to use them as inspiration. For the subsequent vintages, Kreglinger used packaging (pictured below) comprising a pink capsule with gold decoration, although the bottles were different shapes from the VCC products. </p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh27SgJawNznLiCVztntScx35LB0lvEuN1pXQA23fuGje_Oa3-KTXDsqWs1O_RTvWoYkUpNe0XLTPBa3eCSwSuIGsRWSU5p982gbPDRLDn5hufsZKnCIkwfa0ET3KfsZm67ShTtFrDPDSz7owEqYBA2S85nNgnqLHnGtlxHuwkbhuV_ZsrlMyYmuw/s1416/New%20Certan.png" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1248" data-original-width="1416" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh27SgJawNznLiCVztntScx35LB0lvEuN1pXQA23fuGje_Oa3-KTXDsqWs1O_RTvWoYkUpNe0XLTPBa3eCSwSuIGsRWSU5p982gbPDRLDn5hufsZKnCIkwfa0ET3KfsZm67ShTtFrDPDSz7owEqYBA2S85nNgnqLHnGtlxHuwkbhuV_ZsrlMyYmuw/s320/New%20Certan.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photos of the packaging of later vintages <br />of the "New Certan" wine</td></tr></tbody></table>When VCC learned about "New Certan", their representative emailed in 2014, asking "is this an April fool's joke or a new creation?" - de Moor informed them it was not a joke. The VCC representative replied that this "not only shocks me, but also fills me with sadness because I will have to defend the image of the domain that you shamelessly plagiarise."<p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Passing Off</h3><div><p></p><p></p><p>Given the very different price points and the different bottle shapes, VCC did not argue that consumers would be misled or deceived into thinking that the "New Certan" wine is one of the VCC wines. Rather, they argued that the name and packaging conveyed that there is a connection, approval, or affiliation between "New Certan" and VCC. </p><p>Justice Beach started by noting that the word "Certan" is used by other French wine producers and that VCC did not sell its wine by reference to the word Certan alone. Therefore, VCC did not have a monopoly on the word Certan. Additionally, the use of a pink capsule (albeit an unusual shade) was not unique to VCC products, as this was used in the packaging of other red wines.</p><p>The relevant class of consumers was found to include Australian wine consumers who have an interest in premium wines, and members of the fine wine trade. Prior to 2013 (when "New Certan" was put on the market), Justice Beach found that the overall sales and promotion of VCC wines were minor, and little of that promotion involved any depiction or exposure of the pink cap or other visual features. The evidence of a reputation was thin, but Justice Beach still found that VCC had - just barely - established a sufficient reputation amongst members of the fine wine trade in Australia.</p><p>Regarding intention to mislead, whilst acknowledging the instructions to the label designer about taking inspiration from VCC's wines, Justice Beach found that de Moor’s creative intention was to pay homage to family heritage, not to copy an existing brand. </p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg07VtDBHc68SfGdZy0vvCy0UF9-QZskxyvhKW2Q-orFVeldmPP5b6v9Qfwhb0LkX7mR5ACr87hNi8jg0aNLWZXfXdeTbyxNDiH-FawYJpV2eZG5AJtDD4vhYyQJmzJ7MHNl8gJP564LFgbm80VrzC5eYekwQMz3zABFkVF8Mh8yn9TpsOpgmNvTw/s1260/Repackaged.png" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1216" data-original-width="1260" height="309" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg07VtDBHc68SfGdZy0vvCy0UF9-QZskxyvhKW2Q-orFVeldmPP5b6v9Qfwhb0LkX7mR5ACr87hNi8jg0aNLWZXfXdeTbyxNDiH-FawYJpV2eZG5AJtDD4vhYyQJmzJ7MHNl8gJP564LFgbm80VrzC5eYekwQMz3zABFkVF8Mh8yn9TpsOpgmNvTw/s320/Repackaged.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The redesigned packaging of New Certan</td></tr></tbody></table>The critical issue was damage. Justice Beach determined that "there is no evidence that VCC has suffered any loss or damage at all, and there is similarly no basis to infer that it would." By the time of trial, the 2021 vintage of New Certan had been withdrawn from sale and the commercial value of the remaining old stock was insignificant. Kreglinger had also designed new packaging (see image right), which Justice Beach found to be "a world away from the packaging of the VCC wines." In the absence of damage, the tort of passing off had not been established (nor was VCC entitled to an injunction under the Australian Consumer Law).<p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Trade Mark Cancellation</h3><p style="text-align: left;">The final issue was that Kreglinger was the registered proprietor of an Australian trade mark for the words NEW CERTAN, filed on 25 November 1999, in class 33 for alcoholic beverages including wines. The registration of that trade mark was unopposed. </p><p>As part of the case, VCC sought cancellation of the trade mark on the grounds that the mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion and was contrary to law. However, Justice Beach rejected this claim. Prior to the filing date in 1999, the evidence of promotion of the VCC wines by Australian distributors was minimal, and therefore VCC did not enjoy the protection afforded to well-known marks. Furthermore, noting that VCC did not have any rights in the name "Certan" alone, Justice Beach held that the names "New Certan" and "Vieux Château Certan" were not deceptively similar.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Comments</h3><p>This case illustrates how producers in so-called "New World" countries (e.g. US, Australia, etc) who wish to use the names and presentation of products from their family heritage might place themselves in the legal crosshairs of their European cousins. Whilst Kreglinger used a sufficiently dissimilar name and took enough steps before trial to avoid liability, the judgment highlights the risks of paying homage to "Old World" products - even very niche ones. So, if you're going to make a new wine, it might be a good idea to put it in new bottles.</p></div>Jocelyn Bossehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14966228076523914309noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29914407090177316922024-03-17T06:34:00.000+00:002024-03-17T06:34:30.626+00:00Sunday Surprises<div>With rising temperatures and spring in the air in Europe, here come the latest Kat news, events and more. <br /><br /></div> <div style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOrN5vcom0Vz5uSqnFaBqNBwnt6WiajlrdNjVyARIzuilFHBht2jKiyVJw2aOlZoV3LobmGyDcBVcymd8tZu-IJC8Am-4D3EvIJWtHSsa1vcOqbDsGz93iecQ7BzhoHSMYLFEsqixa2phiAQT1c1DdphZNfhgU-kIb0tF_E1BI2Yc44_O9zebu/s1125/SaSu1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="750" data-original-width="1125" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOrN5vcom0Vz5uSqnFaBqNBwnt6WiajlrdNjVyARIzuilFHBht2jKiyVJw2aOlZoV3LobmGyDcBVcymd8tZu-IJC8Am-4D3EvIJWtHSsa1vcOqbDsGz93iecQ7BzhoHSMYLFEsqixa2phiAQT1c1DdphZNfhgU-kIb0tF_E1BI2Yc44_O9zebu/s320/SaSu1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /></div><div><b><u>Kat news </u></b><br /><br /><b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/the-ipkat-team_20.html">Eleonora Rosati</a></b> commented in a <b><a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-vladimir-putin-ukraine-fights-uphill-battle-over-go-fuck-yourself-trademark/">Politico article</a></b> on the refusal of the trade mark application for the figurative sign <br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"> <br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA1sKZTPxoYAfNZ74m3SoZTD4gijefFLA0Aadhs0QyugOtwmX4sZvHH5YhKBPELu68-1FnQBqnIPCO0wQMRGFWJ0FK2PWqY9h56QdUc2WGufKceG93_2TW0cfDbvHr4-b2TA5ctkoIciUj8HzZmSzhgNPy4u0w5whp-GKhgcJKoTn53w3RncQ9/s732/sasu2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="230" data-original-width="732" height="101" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA1sKZTPxoYAfNZ74m3SoZTD4gijefFLA0Aadhs0QyugOtwmX4sZvHH5YhKBPELu68-1FnQBqnIPCO0wQMRGFWJ0FK2PWqY9h56QdUc2WGufKceG93_2TW0cfDbvHr4-b2TA5ctkoIciUj8HzZmSzhgNPy4u0w5whp-GKhgcJKoTn53w3RncQ9/s320/sasu2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div>by the EUIPO (no. <a href="https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/018672791"><b>018672791</b></a>), filed by the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine. <br /><br /> <b><u>Events </u></b><br /><br /><b>18-19 April 2024: AIPPI Trilateral Seminar </b><br /><br />The Polish, German and French Groups of AIPPI organise the traditional joint seminar on IP related issues. It will be hosted on 18 and 19 April 2024 in Warsaw. Topics cover, inter alia, preliminary measures in IP matters in the UPC and national court practices, indirect infringement of IP rights in cross-border situations and enforcement of financial claims in IP matters. The full programme is accessible <a href="https://konferencjaip2024.syskonf.pl/"><b>here</b></a>. <br /><br /> <b>12-13 September 2024: Conference “Digital Knowledge – The Library and Copyright in a Global Digital Economy” </b><br /><br />The National Library of Sweden in collaboration with the Swedish Intellectual Property Office will host a conference on the challenges presented by the digital economy and technologies like Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Text and Data Mining. The conference takes place at the National Library of Sweden in Stockholm on 12 and 13 September 2024. Further information can be found <a href="https://delegia.com/app/netattm/attendee/page/122942"><b>here</b></a>. <br /><br /><b><u> Courses </u></b><br /><br /><b>UCL’s Summer School 2024 </b><br /><br />The University College London offers a summer school programme on the ‘Foundations in Intellectual Property Law’. The course runs from 24 June to 12 July 2024 and is aimed at legal practitioners new to the world of IP law. It will equip participants with a thorough understanding of foundational principles of intellectual property law. Read more about this course <b><a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/short-courses/summer-school/foundations-intellectual-property-law">here</a></b>. <br /><br /><b> 2024 IViR Summer Course on International Copyright Law & Policy </b><br /><br />The Institute for Information Law organizes an annual intensive post-graduate course on international copyright law and policy. The course will extend over a period of five days from 1 to 5 July 2024. Enrollment is limited to 15 to 20 participants, so better hurry and visit the summer courses’ website <a href="https://www.ivir.nl/courses/icl/"><b>here</b></a>. <br /><br /><b><u> Blogs </u></b><br /><br />The SPC blog has been revived on LinkedIn and can be found <b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-spc-blog/?viewAsMember=true">here</a></b>. It is an excellent source for everyone interested in supplementary protection certificates. The blog includes a master resources document, listing the CJEU cases, cases by article and by country. <br /><br /><b> <u>EPO case law book survey </u></b><br /><br />The Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (‘EPO’) publish the ‘Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO’ (‘Case Law Book’) every three years with a view to helping practitioners and other stakeholders keep abreast of its jurisprudence. The Case Law Book is currently available in <b><a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/case-law/2022/index.html">HTML</a></b> and <b><a href="https://link.epo.org/web/case_law_of_the_boards_of_appeal_2022_en.pdf">PDF</a></b> formats in all three official languages of the EPO. It is one of the most-used patent law resources. <br /><br />Complete the online <a href="https://survey.willistowerswatson.com/en-gb/login/LandingPage/93660551"><b>survey</b></a> (EN/DE/FR) run by the EPO Boards of Appeal, to shape future editions and ensure that this vital resource continues to meet your needs. <br /><br /> <br />Picture is by <a href="https://www.pexels.com/de-de/foto/tier-haustier-geast-aste-15056113/"><b>Rahib Yaqubov</b></a> and used under the licensing terms of pexels.com. </div>Marcel Pemselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06609359474931860987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5531282279919087372024-03-16T18:44:00.002+00:002024-03-16T18:44:58.095+00:00French court confirms copyright protection for "Tam Tam" stool Works of applied art seem to be an inexhaustible source of intellectual property disputes [<i>IPKat <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/to-be-protected-t-shirt-design-must-be.html" target="_blank"><b>here</b></a>, <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/10/inclusion-of-lamp-in-photograph-french.html" target="_blank"><b>here</b></a> and <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-cofemel-decision-well-beyond-simple.html" target="_blank"><b>here</b></a></i>]. This is surely due to their omnipresence in our daily lives, and the competition between the various players in the sector, thinks this Kat. This time, this Kat has found <a href="https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/65d84c3c5d35630008e1f060" target="_blank"><b>a recent decision</b></a> issued by the Court of Appeal of Lyon [<i>this Kat’s hometown</i>] concerning <a href="https://stamp.fr/urban-patio/tabouret-tamtam-pop-21.html" target="_blank"><b>an iconic model of stool, named “Tam Tam”</b></a>.<div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI4mJkS0OUaYY8OjkGysEigje1_V_bzhoB0y1jc-mSqKwtj1-fJGQ5Z1T1lLP_RP0uXoLOh8y6skEMXWX7fjGt_LYSWJIDCoaCWMou6VjCRW4zsFsJUjZNPeKHKd-VzXStmWCzWMn8Uqmb64htKEophdicBpf257Fkul6N6-2Nu95j680HbIFsJg/s551/Image1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="551" data-original-width="551" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI4mJkS0OUaYY8OjkGysEigje1_V_bzhoB0y1jc-mSqKwtj1-fJGQ5Z1T1lLP_RP0uXoLOh8y6skEMXWX7fjGt_LYSWJIDCoaCWMou6VjCRW4zsFsJUjZNPeKHKd-VzXStmWCzWMn8Uqmb64htKEophdicBpf257Fkul6N6-2Nu95j680HbIFsJg/s320/Image1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Kat on a stool</i></td></tr></tbody></table><h3 style="text-align: left;">Facts</h3>The facts of this case are relatively straightforward. French company Stamp sold a model of a removable plastic stool called "Tam Tam", created by Henri Massonnet in 1968. A prototype and the stool were registered as designs on 5 November 1968 and 8 September 1983.<br /><br />In May 2015, Stamp realised that La Foir'fouille was marketing a stool model resembling the Stamp stool. Stamp sued La Foir'fouille and FF Digitale for copyright infringement before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Lyon. In <a href="https://justice.pappers.fr/decision/b1c4e55c311f77d7c8f7000dfb0d9eddec3c18ec" target="_blank"><b>a ruling dated 20 October 2020</b></a>, the court upheld the copyright protection of the "Tam Tam" stool but dismissed the plaintiff's infringement action. Stamp appealed.<div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNFFrTn88lSG8fZbA9n9iHgayYsAmibYLyuu7crC9kmHxOgfzDjMmA7cKhsvjc3oRMGYfKEntNfRzKnsVN25XnTkJfPPNvI6lWyOUgSr1LyfP74DdiEvctDLUnu3eMnbih_tl5ZKLWxhhM0zNQUmyTAeerVIbamDLMuWwwSwokB5G0ZzV6Jm3hiw/s607/Image2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="607" data-original-width="607" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNFFrTn88lSG8fZbA9n9iHgayYsAmibYLyuu7crC9kmHxOgfzDjMmA7cKhsvjc3oRMGYfKEntNfRzKnsVN25XnTkJfPPNvI6lWyOUgSr1LyfP74DdiEvctDLUnu3eMnbih_tl5ZKLWxhhM0zNQUmyTAeerVIbamDLMuWwwSwokB5G0ZzV6Jm3hiw/s320/Image2.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The "Tam Tam" stool</i></td></tr></tbody></table><h3 style="text-align: left;">Analysis</h3>In reaching its decision, the Lyon Court of Appeal divided its reasoning into several steps. After considering several procedural issues, including the validity of the counterfeit seizure requested by Stamp, the Court of Appeal turned to the question of copyright infringement.<br /><br />The Court of Appeal first examined whether the stool was protectable under copyright law. Referring to <a href="https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006278869" target="_blank"><b>article L. 111-2 of the French Intellectual Property Code (CPI)</b></a>, the court recalled that “<i>a work is deemed to have been created, independently of any public disclosure, by the sole fact of the realisation, even unfinished, of the author's conception. A work can only be protected if it bears the stamp of its author's personality, and the burden of proving its originality lies with the person claiming the corresponding right</i>”.<br /><br />The reiteration of these principles is not surprising on two counts. When it comes to originality, the French courts have a curious tendency not to want to use the exact terms used in the case law of the CJEU (<i><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=216545&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1332032" target="_blank"><b>i.e. Funke Medien, C-469/17, at [23]</b></a></i>). Nevertheless, this difference does not imply any error of assessment in the judgment under review. Furthermore, the fact that a person claiming copyright infringement must first establish the originality of their work is a principle that is now well established in French case law [<i>IPKat <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/09/ballad-in-mall-violence-of-scene-does.html" target="_blank"><b>here</b></a></i>].<br /><br />Accordingly, elements such as the "<i>diabolo shape resulting from the use of plastic, the twin parts that can be disassembled and fitted together at a point whose relative thinness makes it possible to support the weight of a body, the possibilities offered by these disassembled and interlocking features, which do not respond to a technical challenge, but make it possible to play between the multiple interlocking profiles</i>" characterized the originality of the Tam Tam stool for the Court of Appeal. It should be remembered that the originality of the 'Tam-Tam' model had already been acknowledged on in previous judgements. The plaintiff has therefore merely confirmed previously adopted conclusions.<br /><br />On this, the Court of Appeal's analysis of the demonstration of originality appears to be consistent with case law [<i>IPKAT on protection of work of applied art <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/germanys-federal-court-of-justice.html" target="_blank"><b>here</b></a></i>]. Contrary to the defendant's argument, the duration of the intellectual and material investment is irrelevant to the concept of originality. It should also be added that the popularity of a work should not be taken into account when assessing its originality. Fortunately, such was not the case here.<br /><br />Another important point in this ruling deserves some explanation. La Foir'fouille attempted to ‘weaken’ the originality of the Tam Tam stool by producing other similar stools. The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no evidence of the existence of prior art incorporating the specific combination claimed by Stamp. <br /><br />Care must be exercised in this regard. The concept of prior art cannot be applied as such in copyright law, unlike design law. However, in disputes involving works of applied art, it is common practice to produce documents setting out the characteristics that underpin the originality of the allegedly infringed work. The aim is to demonstrate that this work is a simple iteration of a trend or style, a banal reworking of what may already exist, which cannot be protected by copyright as such [<i>IPKat <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/to-be-protected-t-shirt-design-must-be.html" target="_blank"><b>here</b></a></i>].<br /><br />In the end, the Court of Appeal held that the defendant had committed acts of infringement by selling a stool reproducing the original characteristics of Stamps’s one. In fact, the stool sold by La Foir'Fouille incorporated all the features that made the Tam-Tam stool original. <br /><br />From a practical point of view, this ruling is a reminder that a work of applied art, such as a piece of furniture, can be protected under copyright law, if it is sufficiently original. The fact that a certain work has been declared original by a previous judgment should not necessarily lead to this characterisation being avoided in the new dispute. In fact, it may seem judicious to repeat the demonstration of originality that was validated by the court.<div><br /></div>Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10460139232758535468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-9621548601978664612024-03-15T14:23:00.003+00:002024-03-15T14:33:57.639+00:00[Guest post] Dramatic reversal in the CRISPR Broad Institute cases following G 1/22<p><b>In </b><a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/g220001ex1"><b>G 1/22</b></a><b> (and G 2/22), the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) found that there is a strong rebuttable presumption that an applicant of a European patent application is entitled to claim priority. </b><b>An interesting question following G 1/22 was the potential impact (if any) on the high-profile CRISPR dispute. </b><b>The Broad Institute famously lost a highly commercially valuable CRISPR patent for invalid priority (</b><a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t180844eu1"><b>T 844/18</b></a>, <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/01/crispr-hearing-day-4-still-clear-cut.html?_sm_au_=iVVZM2J3QVWj331jpGsWvKttvN1NG"><b>IPKat</b></a><b>). However, with the dramatic shift in EPO's approach to priority represented by G 1/22, would the Broad now have a shot at maintaining a patent in this family? </b></p><p>Earlier this month, oral proceedings were held in the consolidated appeal cases T 2360/19, T 2516/19 and T 2689/19 relating to the Broad Institute's European platform patents for CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology. The only issue discussed was the formal priority entitlement. Whilst we await the written decision from the Board of Appeal, a Katfriend present at oral proceedings has provided IPKat with the following exclusive report:</p><p>"The appeals in T 2360/19, T 2516/19 and T 2689/19 were lodged against opposition division (OD) decisions to either revoke or drastically narrow down patents on the CRISPR/Cas-9 technology held by the Broad Institute et al. Priority entitlement was an issue because neither the priority co-applicant and inventor Dr. Marraffini nor his successor-in-title, the Rockefeller University, was named as applicant on the subsequent PCT applications. In such a fact situation, a patent arising from the PCT application does normally not enjoy priority under <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a87.html"><b>Article 87(1) EPC</b></a>, as was confirmed in the previous case <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t180844eu1"><b>T 844/18</b></a> by the same Board in a different composition for exactly the same fact situation (<a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/01/crispr-hearing-day-4-still-clear-cut.html?_sm_au_=iVVZM2J3QVWj331jpGsWvKttvN1NG"><b>IPKat</b></a>). </p><p>The crucial question was whether decision <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/g220001ex1"><b>G 1/22</b></a> (and G 2/22) that was handed down by the EBA in October 2023 would reverse the priority assessment of <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t180844eu1"><b>T 844/18</b></a>. In its Headnote I, the EBA on the one hand confirmed the EPO’s competence to assess whether a party is entitled to claim priority under <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a87.html"><b>Article 87(1) EPC</b></a>. However, on the other hand, the EBA also held:</p><p>'<b>There is a rebuttable presumption under the autonomous law of the EPC that the applicant claiming priority in accordance with <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a88.html">Articles 88(1)</a> EPC and the corresponding Implementing Regulations is entitled to claim priority</b>.' (Headnote I, second sentence)</p><p>In other words, by the “rebuttable presumption” approach, the burden of proof was shifted to the opponents. While before <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/g220001ex1"><b>G 1/22</b></a>, in case of non-identity of priority applicants and subsequent applicants, the patentees were obliged to demonstrate that they were entitled to claim the priority (e.g., in <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t141201eu1"><b>T 1201/14</b></a> even “beyond reasonable doubt”), it is now up to the opponents to “demonstrate that specific facts support serious doubts about the subsequent applicant’s entitlement to priority” (G 1/22, Reasons 110). </p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBA9iyttVs9sIe58PeW_KEz_QxsN9WEC5aXpAa0kwbJNGotaE1H4C9ruc6LaoXpk4ABB3invL6UcDi88gkRIjcg3Ia0_fP8SaDPxHZZd0HPTB20j8g6lYFizNaeRVk2v3vGVNErgiJ0wu1vYB2Xaj3SN5-MUzoIik1M5TWC7YHdtrFAzZnXQvV/s1024/IMG_0457.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1024" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBA9iyttVs9sIe58PeW_KEz_QxsN9WEC5aXpAa0kwbJNGotaE1H4C9ruc6LaoXpk4ABB3invL6UcDi88gkRIjcg3Ia0_fP8SaDPxHZZd0HPTB20j8g6lYFizNaeRVk2v3vGVNErgiJ0wu1vYB2Xaj3SN5-MUzoIik1M5TWC7YHdtrFAzZnXQvV/s320/IMG_0457.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Standing the case law on priority on its head</i></td></tr></tbody></table><p>In the triple case at hand, the Opponents immediately realized the potential effect of the EBA decision and filed submissions pointing to evidence that, at the relevant PCT filing date, there was an inventorship dispute between Broad and Rockefeller, meaning that the latter did not agree with filing the PCT applications without them, which would imply that they did also not agree with claiming the priority for those PCT applications. In addition, the Opponents pointed to Rockefeller’s filing of a competing application with the USPTO for exactly the same subject-matter as one of the PCT applications, which was said to further support Rockefeller’s disagreement. Only after a later arbitration, a settlement was reached between these parties so that Rockefeller accepted not to be named on the PCT applications. The Opponents also argued that, in the cases at hand, if at all, only a weak presumption could apply since Broad could file the PCT applications with priority declarations complying with the formalities of <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a88.html"><b>Article 88</b></a> and <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/r52.html"><b>Rules 52</b></a> and <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/r53.html"><b>53</b></a> EPC without the cooperation of the sidelined Rockefeller.</p><p>In the oral proceedings, the Patentees argued that the dispute between Broad and Rockefeller was only about inventorship and ownership, and not about priority entitlement. Rockefeller was even said to have had an interest in valid priority rights. Thus, there was an implied consent in claiming the priorities, a criterion that was also used by the EBA in <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/g220001ex1"><b>G 1/22</b></a> in connection with the “rebuttable presumption”. </p><p>The Opponents countered, <i>inter alia</i>, by referring to the basic principle of the law of evidence that, after having provided the <i>prima facie</i> case based on evidence that Rockefeller apparently disagreed with Broad’s priority claims, the burden of proof should have shifted to the Patentees to clearly demonstrate, beyond merely alleging a general implied consent, that Rockefeller indeed agreed with the priority claims. </p><p>However, in the end, the Board agreed with Patentees and accepted validity of the claimed priorities. No reasoning was given in the oral proceedings. The Board also refused to refer questions of law to the EBA as had been suggested by two Opponents to clarify the conditions at which the “rebuttable presumption” applies. </p><p><b>Analysis</b></p><p>As a first observation, the Board’s decision to accept the priorities can be regarded as an extreme interpretation of <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/g220001ex1"><b>G 1/22</b></a>. The body of evidence seemed quite clearly to be in the Opponents’ favour. In a preliminary opinion issued about one month ahead of the hearing, the Board even expressed its preparedness to accept validity of the priority claims based on the outcome of the arbitration as both a retroactive and implicit transfer of the priority rights. This approach might have been overcome by subsequent written submissions of the Opponents showing that, even under US law that was mentioned by the EBA as an example of valid retroactive transfers (<a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/g220001ex1"><b>G 1/22</b></a>, Reasons 100), a retroactive transfer of rights is only acceptable as a confirmation of a preceding implicit transfer before the relevant date. Thus, Patentees must somehow have convinced the Board that there was a collaborative relationship between Board and Rockefeller before the PCT filing, enough to accept that the presumption of priority entitlement was not rebutted. It will be interesting to see how the Board will justify its decision in writing.</p><p>Although the EBA’s attempt to find in <a href="https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/g220001ex1"><b>G 1/22</b></a> a pragmatic solution for the inflation of formal priority challenges in oppositions is appreciated, the Board seems to have overshot the mark in the three cases reported herein. This is so because the evidence on file proved that, at the relevant PCT filing date, the left-out priority applicant and his successor in title, the Rockefeller University, did not agree with filing the PCT application without naming them. In view of this, the question is now which evidence could ever lead to a valid rebuttal of the presumed priority entitlement. Hardly conceivable to find any. This, however, contrasts with the EBA’s conclusion that the EPO is competent to decide on priority entitlement. It will be interesting to see whether, in the near future, opponents will find a Board of Appeal who is more interested in finding a balanced approach that is in line with the established law of evidence principles and who might refer corresponding questions of law to the EBA to clarify how the EPO is supposed to exercise its competence to determine priority entitlement in accordance with Article 87(1) EPC". </p><p>We now await the written decision from the Board of Appeal. </p><p><b>Further reading</b></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2018/01/epo-revokes-crispr-patent-clear-cut.html?_sm_au_=iVVZM2J3QVWj331jpGsWvKttvN1NG"><b>EPO revokes CRISPR patent – a clear cut case of invalid priority?</b></a> (Jan 2018)</li><li><b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/01/crispr-hearing-day-4-still-clear-cut.html?_sm_au_=iVVZM2J3QVWj331jpGsWvKttvN1NG">CRISPR hearing Day 4: Still a clear cut case of invalid priority, Broad Institute's appeal dismissed</a></b></li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/01/aftermath-of-crispr-hearing-highlights.html?_sm_au_=iVVZM2J3QVWj331jpGsWvKttvN1NG"><b>Aftermath of the CRISPR hearing - Highlights from the blogosphere</b></a> (Jan 2020)</li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/02/is-broad-institute-planning-last-ditch.html?_sm_au_=iVVZM2J3QVWj331jpGsWvKttvN1NG"><b>Is the Broad Institute planning a last-ditch attempt to save their CRISPR patent?</b></a> (Feb 2020)</li><li><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/highlights-from-new-epo-guidelines-for.html?_sm_au_=iVVZM2J3QVWj331jpGsWvKttvN1NG"><b>Highlights from the new EPO Guidelines for Examination 2024</b></a> (Feb 2024)</li></ul><p></p><div><br /></div>Rose Hugheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04232611463781544102noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67398623386402093682024-03-15T06:26:00.045+00:002024-03-15T09:11:36.544+00:00[Guest Post] Complexities of audiovisual copyright claims in Nigeria: Ini Edo and Chinenye Nworah’s dispute over Shanty Town (Neflix)<div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following guest contribution by <a href="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2124-2642"><b>Nkem Itanyi </b></a>(University of Nigeria) on a recent dispute over copyright ownership of the movie, Shanty Town which premiered on Netflix in January 2023 and discussions over a sequel to the movie. Here’s what Nkem writes:</span></i><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Complexities of audiovisual copyright claims in Nigeria: Ini Edo and Chinenye Nworah’s dispute over Shanty Town (Netflix) </b></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">by Nkem Itanyi </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Late last month (February), it was reported in the news that the star actress and co-producer of the movie <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3-TbsMEVPw">“Shanty Town” (released on Netflix in 2023)</a></b> (Iniobong Edo Ekim, pka Ini Edo) had written a letter to Netflix Inc through her solicitors demanding that Netflix <b><a href="https://www.stelladimokokorkus.com/2024/02/actress-ini-edo-issues-cease-and-desist.html">ceases and desists</a></b> from entering into any agreement for a Shanty Town sequel solely with Chinenye Nworah and Giant Creative Media Limited (GCM), the creative producer and production company respectively, of Shanty Town. Ini Edo’s legal team had also written a petition to the Registrar of Trademarks and the Director General of Nigerian Copyright Commission, stating that GCM and Chinenye Nworah’s application for trade mark registration of SCAR (the name of one of the characters in the movie) and application for copyright registration of “Shanty Town” was made by false pretences. GMC <b><a href="https://www.stelladimokokorkus.com/2024/02/actress-ini-edo-issues-cease-and-desist.html">denied the assertions</a></b> as false. <br /><br />This post discusses the questions on the issue of joint authorship of audiovisual works and implications of copyright registration, which are raised by this dispute. <br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Background </b><br />The solicitors to Ini Edo and Minini Empire Productions Limited (MEP) stated in their petition to the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) and Trademarks and Patent Design Registry that Chinenye Nworah sought to bypass their right as co-owners of the IPRs to the movie, Shanty Town. They further buttressed their claims by mentioning an agreement that was entered into between ICM AND MEP, which grants them equal and joint ownership over the IPRs to Shanty Town. According to the documents published on the internet, the relationship between Ini Edo and Chichi Nworah began as a co-production agreement on December 13, 2019, with another named partner, Joy Odiete, to produce a slate of 5 movies in a 10-year timeline. As a result of these formalities, Ini Edo and Chinenye, in April 2021, made a pitch to Fidelity Bank for funding/sponsorship for Shanty Town. They both signed off as the executive producers of the movie. However, a subsequent agreement was later entered into by both parties, which was titled “Shanty Town Investment Agreement”, where Ini Edo was designated as the Producer/Financier. According to the petition, it was further stated that the IPRs for the movie shall remain with MEP and GCM and that a total of 5% of the total net profit shall be set aside for MEP and GCM for their respective IPRs in the movie. <br /></span></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5lSS8v7VLrSq2ObXdnNo48rRr41mrULQtx8F0JY1S7Va8-lHlmhbo99_w1VQOt6QWs3NwXbRDRMAlIkPYp6edipTDC8_rp35_ZGSCyaO0LUVvc9prgsR11MofCvjH-LriM_HnPg3xT7GfAjxxdfr4JHDxU8fJG89AlyF92amHKJ3R6O74W6k28g/s1464/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20at%208.23.29%E2%80%AFAM.png" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5lSS8v7VLrSq2ObXdnNo48rRr41mrULQtx8F0JY1S7Va8-lHlmhbo99_w1VQOt6QWs3NwXbRDRMAlIkPYp6edipTDC8_rp35_ZGSCyaO0LUVvc9prgsR11MofCvjH-LriM_HnPg3xT7GfAjxxdfr4JHDxU8fJG89AlyF92amHKJ3R6O74W6k28g/s320/Screenshot%202024-03-15%20at%208.23.29%E2%80%AFAM.png" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>.<a href="https://petsitterfrederick.com/feline-flicks-the-top-15-cat-movies-of-all-time/">..oh the suspense</a></b></i></span></td></tr></tbody></table><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In its response, Giant Creative Media insisted that its Creative Director, Chineye Nworah, is the sole initiator and sole copyright holder of Shanty Town, describing claims suggesting otherwise as entirely false, baseless and without merit. <br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Matters arising </b></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Based on section 2(1) of <a href="https://placng.org/i/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Copyright-Act-2022.pdf"><b>Nigeria’s Copyright Act 2022</b></a>, Shanty Town qualifies as an audiovisual work defined as “the aggregate of a series of related visual images with or without sound, which is capable of being shown as a moving picture by means of a mechanical, electronic or other device and irrespective of the nature of the material on which the visual images and sounds are carried and includes the soundtrack, but does not include a broadcast”. As the persons by whom the arrangements for the making of the audiovisual work were made (see section 108 on definition of author of an audiovisual work), it seems that Ini Edo and Chinenye Nworah are the authors of the audiovisual work (Shanty Town) unless their contract provides otherwise. This is because both made arrangements for the making of the movie, Shanty Town whether as <a href="https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/executive-producer-vs-producer"><b>executive producer</b></a> or as <b><a href="https://www.voices.com/blog/creative-producer/">creative director</a></b>. </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Following from the issue of authorship is that of joint authorship and also co-ownership of copyright in the audiovisual work. Section 108 of the <b>Copyright Act</b> defines “work of joint authorship” as a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contributions of the authors are merged into an inseparable or interdependent part of a whole. This seems to be the case with Shanty Town as it involves Ini Edo and Chineneye Nworah in their capacities as executive producer and creative director. As joint authors, they are co-owners of copyright in Shanty Town again unless their contract says otherwise. </span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Another issue relates to the significance of the fact that Chinenye Nworah has registered her copyright in Shanty Town with the Nigerian Copyright Commission and obtained a copyright certificate to that effect. Under section 43 of the Copyright Act, in an action for infringement of copyright in a work, whether civil or criminal, the following shall be presumed where such work has been registered under section 87 of the Act: </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">(a) that copyright subsists in the work which is the subject matter of an alleged infringement; </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">(b) that the name appearing on the work purporting to be the name of the author is the name of such author. </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">The above provision creates a rebuttable presumption that Chinenye Nworah being in possession of a copyright certificate in her name with respect to Shanty Town is the author of the work and the first owner of copyright in the work. However, other persons (including Ini Edo) may rebut the presumption of authorship by evidence showing that Chinenye Nworah is in fact not the (sole) author of the work. </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Conclusion </b></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Given that much of the issues that arise from this dispute are dependent on the contract between the parties, it is unsurprising that the parties have indicated intentions to settle out of court. </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">The provisions of the Copyright Act regarding authorship and ownership of audiovisual works are clear and would apply as stated if there are no contrary contractual arrangements. However, this dispute is a welcome reminder that while creativity or creative input seems to be the crux of claims to copyright ownership generally, the nature of the audiovisual works sector thrives on contractual arrangements. </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div></div>Chijioke Okoriehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00140789696700616074noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10954654610855085812024-03-12T19:49:00.004+00:002024-03-16T20:08:27.700+00:00Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!<p><b>If you were too busy to stay up-to-date with the IP news last week</b>, here's the summary of what you missed.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">IP Generally</h3><div><p style="text-align: left;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_4EemjWXCPF1QRNJssE6Bi_vO6SQjz7kb8t1FEyeF6FcsL6TeiV9CE77Dzda91-5snAF4PYMxTGQTNA4tV8h5QD-bLt7JtqfWlIGE87MJKgIzTTQ116r7hKJYdkHc8n4oL2ALDHzYI2Us2Gy5gbTp1pitmLD2PBWquyRWSFUnuah3_LzDIadsrw/s853/cat-7533717_1280%20(1).jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="853" data-original-width="853" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_4EemjWXCPF1QRNJssE6Bi_vO6SQjz7kb8t1FEyeF6FcsL6TeiV9CE77Dzda91-5snAF4PYMxTGQTNA4tV8h5QD-bLt7JtqfWlIGE87MJKgIzTTQ116r7hKJYdkHc8n4oL2ALDHzYI2Us2Gy5gbTp1pitmLD2PBWquyRWSFUnuah3_LzDIadsrw/s320/cat-7533717_1280%20(1).jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image from yacubee via Pixabay.</td></tr></tbody></table></p><p>Antonios Baris <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/book-review-and-discount-propriete.html">reviewed</a></b> the book, <i>Propriété intellectuelle et développement durable / Intellectual Property & Sustainable Development</i>, edited by Prof. <b><a href="https://www.unige.ch/droit/en/collaborateur/professeurs/dewerra-jacques/">Jacques de Werra</a></b>. This edited collection addresses the relationship between sustainability and the different IP “ecosystems”, including patents, trade marks, copyright, and unfair competition law. The book can be purchased <b><a href="https://www.schulthess.com/verlag/detail/ISBN-9783725589685/de-Werra-Jacques/Propriete-intellectuelle-et-developpement-durable?CSPCHD=003001000000OW81IMwSYt0000R$a2qIiie4wjIMtfxGOilw--">here </a></b>with a special discount until 7 April 2024.</p><p>Eleonora Rosati <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/interested-in-exploring-ai-in-fashion.html">informed</a></b> readers of the upcoming Fashion Law London <b><a href="https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/fashion-reborn-the-age-of-ai-tickets-856338009037?aff=oddtdtcreator&discount=IPKAT">event on AI in Fashion</a></b>. Readers can join the discussion in central London or online (live streaming) on <b>Monday 13 May</b>. IPKat readers can take advantage of a 15% discount on the registration fee.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Trade Marks</h3><p>Marcel Pemsel <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-global-reach-of-trade-mark-law.html">commented </a></b>on the legal issues that were recently referred to the CJEU by the German Supreme Court. The case (<b><i><a href="https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&sid=752889a00e10452446e5d92c2fd1092f&nr=136288&pos=0&anz=1">Extreme Durable</a></i></b>, I ZR 205/22) focuses on whether the possession of goods abroad constitutes trade mark infringement if the goods are held for the purpose of offering them in the country where the trade mark is protected - in this case, goods stored in Spain and offered for sale on www.amazon.de, which targets German consumers. </p><p>Katfriend <b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/spyridon-sipetas/">Spyridon Sipetas</a></b> <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/guest-post-jacquemus-x-nike-swoosh-bag.html">discussed </a></b>the latest collaborative fashion piece, the Jacquemus x Nike Swoosh Bag. The launch of ‘Le sac Swoosh’ (or ‘The Swoosh bag’) in February raised an eyebrow from art director and graphic designer Davide Perella, who shared his version of a concept Nike bag in 2020. The post evaluates whether a brand’s reproduction of a design comprised of an unauthorized use of their own trade mark in 3D form can be considered as design copying.</p><p>Eleonora Rosati <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/retromark-conference-is-back-on-7-may.html">informed </a></b>readers that the fifth annual Retromark conference will take place on <b>Tuesday 7 May</b>. The event, co-hosted by the IPKat, will be held at Simmons & Simmons’ offices in Citypoint, Moorgate. The programme and registration are available via Eventbrite <b><a href="https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/retromark-the-conference-tickets-825378799207?aff=oddtdtcreator">here</a></b> (readers are encouraged to register quickly as the event normally sells out).</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Copyright</h3><p>Chijioke Okorie <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/long-walk-to-copyright-reform-8-south.html">discussed </a></b>the passage of the Copyright Amendment Bill and Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill by South Africa’s National Assembly. This was the second time the National Assembly passed these bills, after the original bills faced constitutional reservations from the President and were rescinded. The revised bills have now been transmitted to the President for his assent, or referral to the Constitutional Court.</p><p>Eleonora Rosati <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/when-in-rome-do-as-romans-do-rome-court.html">evaluated </a></b>the challenges that national courts face with applying the CJEU copyright case law. She focuses on the misunderstanding of the CJEU's <i>YouTube</i>, <b><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-682/18">C-682/18 and C-683/18</a></b> judgment in the decisions of the Rome Court of First Instance in <i>RTI v Vimeo</i> and <i>RTI v V Kontakte</i>; for example, the Rome Court misunderstood that <i>YouTube </i>concerned primary, not secondary, liability of of a platform operator, and unduly reduced the guidance in <i>YouTube </i>to a formal (and empty) checklist. </p><p>Neil Wilkof <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/guest-book-review-owning-performance.html">reviewed</a></b> the book, <i><b><a href="https://press.umich.edu/Books/O/Owning-Performance-Performing-Ownership">Owning Performance | Performing Ownership: Literary Property and the Eighteenth-Century British Stage</a></b></i>, by Jane Wessel. The book explores how the various personages in the world of the theatre in the 18th century — the playwright, the actor, and the manager — sought to assert control over their creative efforts in the absence of statutory protection. </p></div>Jocelyn Bossehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14966228076523914309noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-46803634304148357392024-03-11T22:17:00.002+00:002024-03-11T22:17:28.677+00:00Puma v/ EUIPO: Posts on celebrity's social media accounts may constitute early disclosure of a registered designThe promotion of items on social media by celebrities and influencers is commonplace for companies. Celebrities are often invited to collaborate to the creation of specific products, or even find themselves at <a href="https://www.lvmh.com/news-documents/news/louis-vuitton-appoints-pharrell-williams-as-its-new-mens-creative-director/" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: black;">the helm of a brand's artistic direction</span></b></a>. However, these collaborations or partnerships don't always work out as they should. <br /><br />This time, photos published on the <a href="https://www.instagram.com/badgalriri/related_profiles/" target="_blank"><span style="color: black;"><b>Instagram account of singer and businesswoman Rihanna</b></span></a> to celebrate her appointment as artistic director of the Puma brand did not go unnoticed [<i>More Rihanna <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2013/07/so-cool-in-court-as-rihanna-tops.html" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: black;">here</span></b></a> and <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/05/a-slippery-design-cant-slide-away-from.html" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: black;">here</span></b></a></i>]. Such is the starting point of <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=283501&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=823233" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: black;">a recent decision issued by the EU General Court</span></b></a>.<div><br /></div><div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV3Z9CFhB_OnmSPv7LV-DfQgQL31begikZ18VGr-OrFHVaezfv4RpxS8DQWexPMOzizrH7xauzvbNErw30XcinQPXIHUu8T1CAKd771zSeNGCh26HxJ5JDIeC3xVyAqrQjlmd3lLDEdpXAg2ZU-NdkBoBYMONYAM0ahR_UBqrm4aOzxJC9-U8p1g/s356/Sans%20titre.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="356" data-original-width="356" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV3Z9CFhB_OnmSPv7LV-DfQgQL31begikZ18VGr-OrFHVaezfv4RpxS8DQWexPMOzizrH7xauzvbNErw30XcinQPXIHUu8T1CAKd771zSeNGCh26HxJ5JDIeC3xVyAqrQjlmd3lLDEdpXAg2ZU-NdkBoBYMONYAM0ahR_UBqrm4aOzxJC9-U8p1g/s320/Sans%20titre.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A famous Kat</i></td></tr></tbody></table><h3 style="text-align: left;">Facts</h3>Puma SE filed an application to register a Community design on 26 July 2016. The design represents different views of a trainer, falling within class 02-04 of the Locarno Agreement. <br /><br />Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst BV applied to the EUIPO for a declaration of invalidity of the Community design based on <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32002R0006" target="_blank"><span style="color: black;"><b>Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002</b></span></a>. In particular, the company produced publications taken from Rihanna’s Instagram account dated 16 and 17 December 2014 showing her wearing a pair of white shoes with a thick black sole. <br /><br />In a decision dated 19 March 2021, the Invalidity Division granted the application for a declaration of invalidity. On 21 April 2021, Puma SE appealed against the decision of the Invalidity Division.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ0TL7im9_CqjMVavAfmS6zqeCwyVongzDLzYKAOBwSaStFRimVvx-YvOB5qwRN_1IgkMQ0n9_zn3v63Wdjn8NTnrv01YeqCSxFfiNwCbyTm2oEZ8ob_BhZGjFthNZmt7zbUiejzjt6__Jgn6EmQNlzi4iyqiiVhCefFpAVM8otcC-lYxFJkj19g/s343/puma.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="343" data-original-width="270" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ0TL7im9_CqjMVavAfmS6zqeCwyVongzDLzYKAOBwSaStFRimVvx-YvOB5qwRN_1IgkMQ0n9_zn3v63Wdjn8NTnrv01YeqCSxFfiNwCbyTm2oEZ8ob_BhZGjFthNZmt7zbUiejzjt6__Jgn6EmQNlzi4iyqiiVhCefFpAVM8otcC-lYxFJkj19g/w315-h400/puma.png" width="315" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Puma's design</i></td></tr></tbody></table><h3 style="text-align: left;">Analysis</h3>In reaching its decision, the General Court divided its analysis into two parts, corresponding to the two pleas on which Puma SE had based its appeal. First, the Court ruled on the inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity. Then the Court ruled on the breach of <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32002R0006" target="_blank"><span style="color: black;"><b>Article 7(1) of Regulation 6/2002</b></span></a>.<br /><br /><b>Inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity <br /></b><br />The EUIPO first ruled on whether the application for a declaration of invalidity was inadmissible on the grounds of alleged bad faith, breach of a contractual obligation on the part of the intervener or the abusive nature of the application. Rejecting this reasoning, the General Court pointed out that “<i>those factors cannot usefully be relied on as a defence in invalidity proceedings, such as those at issue, given that, in such proceedings, it is a matter of ruling on the individual character of the contested design, the assessment of which is objective</i>”.<br /><br />As result, the conduct of the parties has no influence on this assessment. This position is in line with <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=120232&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=858128" target="_blank"><i><b><span style="color: black;">T</span></b><span style="color: black;"><b>-450/08, Coverpla v OHIM - Heinz-Glas, [48]</b></span></i></a>.<br /><br />To better understand this point, we need to go back to the facts of the case. Following an infringement action brought before the Dutch courts, the two companies had reached a legal settlement aimed solely at putting an end to the dispute. However, the purpose of such a settlement was not to create a prohibition on bringing an action for a declaration of invalidity of the contested design, contrary to what Puma SE held. <br /><br />From a procedural perspective, this decision is a reminder of the need for vigilance on the part of the holder of a design who has brought an action for design infringement. It should be borne in mind that a settlement putting an end to an action for infringement of a design does not necessarily prevent an action for invalidity of the same design from being brought. <br /><br /><b>Breach of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002<br /></b><br />The General Court then assessed whether the evidence provided by the intervener was insufficient to demonstrate disclosure of an earlier design before the start of the grace period within the meaning of <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32002R0006" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: black;">Article 7(1) of Regulation 6/2002</span></b></a> [<i>IPKAT on earlier design <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/05/a-slippery-design-cant-slide-away-from.html" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: black;">here</span></b></a> and <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/10/easy-sanitary-solutions-v-group.html"><b><span style="color: black;">here</span></b></a></i>].<br /><br />The Court first recalled that “<i>the assessment as to whether a design has individual character must be conducted in relation to one or more earlier designs, taken individually from among all the designs which have been made available to the public previously, and not in relation to a combination of features taken in isolation and drawn from a number of earlier designs</i>”. This is in line with preexisting case law, notably with <b><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9E0B620E255227CF9CF06D1B09087EF4?text=&docid=153817&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=858269" target="_blank"><i>C‑345/13, Karen Millen Fashions, [25] and [35]</i></a></b>. The earlier design as displayed on Rihanna’s post corresponded to those mandatory characteristics.<br /><br />Then, relying on <b><a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32002R0006" target="_blank">Article 7(1)</a></b>, the Court carried out a two-step analysis to establish the existence of the disclosure of an earlier design:<br /><br /><i>(1) Whether the evidence submitted in the application for a declaration of invalidity shows facts constituting disclosure of a design and that that disclosure occurred earlier than the date of filing or priority of the design at issue;<br /><br />(2) Whether those facts could reasonably become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union</i>.<br /><br />As regards the first step, the Court noted that all the images posted on Rihanna’s Instagram account [<i>and because of their quality</i>] make it possible to identify with the naked eye or by enlarging the photos all the features of the earlier design from different angles, such as “<i>an upper with a low collar, a large flat sole of uniform thickness with pronounced ribbing, which creates a ledge with the upper or seven pairs of circular eyelets and a thick shoe lace</i>”. Those features perfectly matched Puma’s contested registered design. <br /><br />The Court quickly dismissed Puma’s argument that at the time of the singer's posts no one was interested in her shoes nor had seen the earlier design. Indeed, factually speaking, in December 2014, Rihanna was a world-famous pop star. It means that both her fans and the fashion community had developed a particular interest in her outfits. This included interest in the shoes she was wearing on the day she signed the contract with Puma. <br /><br />As regard the occurrence of disclosure of the earlier design, Rihanna’s photos are dated 16 and 17 December 2014. The design application is dated 26 July 2016. It means that more than twelve months passed between these dates. The Court was therefore able to validly conclude that the grace period as understood under <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32002R0006" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: black;">Article 7(2)(b) of Regulation 6/2002</span></b></a> did not apply.<br /><br />As to the second stage, the applicant failed to prove that the photos disseminated on Instagram could not have been known to specialist circles. In this respect, the General Court pointed out that it is sufficient for the specialised circles in the sector concerned operating in the EU to have been aware of only one of the disclosures for the exception provided for in <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32002R0006" target="_blank"><span style="color: black;"><b>Article 7(1)</b></span></a> not to apply. This is in line with <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=200246&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=858542" target="_blank"><span style="color: black;"><b><i>T-651/16, Crocs, [57]</i></b></span></a>.<br /><br /><br />From a practical point of view, this decision should draw the attention of design applicants. An application must be filed without delay from the date on which the design is first unveiled (<i>e.g. at a trade show, on social networks, launch event</i>). The aim is to prevent self-disclosure from invalidating the application for lack of individual character. The twelve-month grace period is indeed not extendable. It is also worth preventing situations such as the one in this case. This can be achieved by signing NDA or at the very least by monitoring what is posted on social networks by one’s influencers and celebrities.Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10460139232758535468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29437107554830594842024-03-11T16:57:00.000+00:002024-03-11T16:57:59.447+00:00CJEU: The Paris Convention does not allow cross-IP priority claims The Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) held – in its recent judgment <b><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=C657FD3F3E3FB1EB592C43B57C33120C?text=&docid=283244&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5731834">The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR</a></b> (case C-382/21 P) – that the Paris Convention does not allow cross-IP priority claims in general, thus disagreeing with the Advocate General’s earlier Opinion (The IPKat <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/does-paris-convention-allow-cross-ip.html"><b>here</b></a>). <br /><br />As a reminder, <a href="https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514"><b>Art. 4(1) Paris Convention</b></a> provides: <br /><blockquote>Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, in one of the countries of the Union, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed. </blockquote><b><a href="https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514">Art. 4(E) Paris Convention</a></b> allows cross-IP priority claims for designs based on earlier utility model applications and for utility models based on earlier patent applications: <br /><blockquote>(1) Where an industrial design is filed in a country by virtue of a right of priority based on the filing of a utility model, the period of priority shall be the same as that fixed for industrial designs. <br /><br />(2) Furthermore, it is permissible to file a utility model in a country by virtue of a right of priority based on the filing of a patent application, and vice versa. </blockquote><b>Background </b><br /><br />On 24 October 2018, The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR (‘KaiKai’) filed an application for the registration of twelve Community designs with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’), claiming priority based on a <a href="https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/488122"><b>Patent Cooperation Treaty</b></a> (‘PCT’) patent application filed on 26 October 2017. The EUIPO’s examiner refused the priority claims because the date of the filing of KaiKai’s design applications exceeded the six-month period set out in <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1690028944300&uri=CELEX%3A02002R0006-20130701#tocId54"><b>Art. 41(1) Community Design Regulation</b></a> (‘CDR’), according to which: <br /><blockquote>A person who has duly filed an application for a design right or for a utility model in or for any State party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, or to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, or his successors in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing an application for a registered Community design in respect of the same design or utility model, a right of priority of six months from the date of filing of the first application. </blockquote><p>KaiKai’s appeal was dismissed by the EUIPO's Board of Appeal (‘BoA’). <br /><br />KaiKai filed a further appeal to the General Court, which was successful. The General Court found that the EUIPO rightly held that an international application under the PCT can be relied upon in order to claim priority for a Community design application under <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1690028944300&uri=CELEX%3A02002R0006-20130701#tocId54"><b>Art. 41(1) CDR</b></a>, provided that the subject matter of the two applications is substantively the same. <br /><br />However, the EUIPO erred in applying a six-month priority period, rather than a twelve-month priority period. <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1690028944300&uri=CELEX%3A02002R0006-20130701#tocId54"><b>Art. 41(1) CDR</b></a> provides a six-month priority period only for utility models. KaiKai’s PCT application on the other hand concerned a patent. <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1690028944300&uri=CELEX%3A02002R0006-20130701#tocId54"><b>Art. 41(1) CDR</b></a> does not mention patents but only designs and utility models. The General Court filled the legislative gap it found to exist by referring to <b><a href="https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514">Art. 4 Paris Convention</a></b>, considering that the Paris Convention allows for priority claims between different types of IP rights. The priority period for patents is twelve months (<b><a href="https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514">Art. 4(C)(1) Paris Convention</a></b>). <br /><br />The EUIPO appealed to the CJEU and the Court <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=251601&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3185188"><b>admitted the appeal</b></a>. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVi9rVJHBSn5ARliF6ZNVR1PAO-9TNQT_plUThOtD1nEpXJ9KHtjmA_ltADNVtBKH4UUcF6KU0aa0udGkiGIe0Z3C0txQcQ0lpwSyoirNDxE2CLCQevcpcouYd60ngJngnoFZwSXd3hJa8JJv4IWUd-dCWaw7cT5TYLv1saTnsXpv_iEKfQ17L/s1280/KaiKai.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="1280" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVi9rVJHBSn5ARliF6ZNVR1PAO-9TNQT_plUThOtD1nEpXJ9KHtjmA_ltADNVtBKH4UUcF6KU0aa0udGkiGIe0Z3C0txQcQ0lpwSyoirNDxE2CLCQevcpcouYd60ngJngnoFZwSXd3hJa8JJv4IWUd-dCWaw7cT5TYLv1saTnsXpv_iEKfQ17L/s320/KaiKai.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p><br /> <b>The CJEU’s decision </b><br /><br />The CJEU sided with the EUIPO and set aside the General Court’s judgment. <br /><br />The Court analysed the relevance of the Paris Convention for EU law. Although all EU Member States are parties to the Paris Convention, the EU is not. However, the EU is a member of the TRIPS Agreement, which – by virtue of <a href="https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/trips_e.htm#part1"><b>Art. 2(1) TRIPS Agreement</b></a> – incorporates various provisions of the Paris Convention, including the latter’s <a href="https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514"><b>Art. 4</b></a>. The TRIPS Agreement does not have direct effect, meaning that it does not create individual rights and it is not a legal standard with which measures of the EU institutions must comply. Nevertheless, since the TRIPs Agreement is binding on the EU, it takes precedence over EU secondary legislation and the latter must be interpreted as far as possible in accordance with the TRIPS Agreement. <br /><br />Further, the PCT must be considered because all EU Member States are party to it. According to <a href="https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/488122#article1"><b>Art. 1(2) PCT</b></a>, the PCT is without prejudice to the rights provided for by the Paris Convention. <br /><br />Unlike the General Court and the Advocate General, the CJEU considered the wording of <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1690028944300&uri=CELEX%3A02002R0006-20130701#tocId54"><b>Art. 41(1) CDR</b></a> to be unequivocal and clear. Priority for a design can only be claimed within six months on the basis of an earlier application for a design or utility model. The judges also found that <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1690028944300&uri=CELEX%3A02002R0006-20130701#tocId54"><b>Art. 41(1) CDR</b></a> is exhaustive and does not contain a gap by not mentioning earlier patent applications. The provision does not allow a priority right for a design to be based on a patent application. <br /><br />Therefore, a priority right can be based on a PCT application only if the latter’s subject is a utility model. In this case, the time period to claim priority is six months. <br /><br />The CJEU also found that the General Court misinterpreted <b><a href="https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514">Art. 4 Paris Convention</a></b>. By referring to the wording of said provision and the <b><a href="https://tind.wipo.int/record/28637">Guide to the application of the Paris Convention</a></b>, which is not binding but contributes to the interpretation of the Paris Convention, the judges held that the subsequent application must have the ‘same subject’ as the earlier application on which the priority claim is based. <br /><br /><a href="https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514"><b>Art. 4(E) Paris Convention</b></a> sets out exhaustively the situations in which cross-IP priority rights can be claimed. Therefore, a design application cannot claim priority of an earlier PCT patent application. <br /><br /> <b>Comment </b><br /><br />The CJEU’s judgment is clear and straightforward, just as the wording of the provisions it interpreted. Priority claims can only be based on the same intellectual property right, unless cross-IP priority claims are explicitly allowed. </p><p><br /></p><p>Picture is by <a href="https://pixabay.com/de/photos/katze-stra%C3%9Fenschild-vorsicht-7478276/"><b>Alexandra_Koch</b></a> and used under the licensing terms of pixabay.com.<br /></p>Marcel Pemselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06609359474931860987noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1383823210710151472024-03-11T07:00:00.001+00:002024-03-11T07:00:00.139+00:00[Guest Post] Tax Court of South Africa wrestles with “arm’s length” royalties rate for IP licenses<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">One of the sure things in the world of royalties and royalty rate calculations is taxes. Katfriend <b><a href="http://linkedin.com/in/tmmoloto">Thato Moloto</a></b> (Trademarkia) writes on the methods used in calculating royalty rates for IP licences to enable the determination of appropriate taxes. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Here’s what Thato writes: </span></i><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Tax Court of South Africa wrestles with “arm’s length” royalties rate for IP licenses </b><br />by Thato Moloto <br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">On 14 February 2024, the Tax Court of South Africa handed down a judgement in the seminal transfer pricing case of <b><i><a href="https://www.sars.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/Legal/Judgments/TC/Legal-DRJ-TC-2024-02-SARSTC-14302-IT-2024-ZATC-JHB-14-February-2024.pdf">ABD Limited v The Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service</a></i> (<a href="https://www.sars.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/Legal/Judgments/TC/Legal-DRJ-TC-2024-02-SARSTC-14302-IT-2024-ZATC-JHB-14-February-2024.pdf">IT 14302</a>).</b> This case revolved around determining the market price at which a parent company would have charged its foreign subsidiaries for the use of intellectual property in market-based arm’s length negotiation. The court, in its deliberation, scrutinized various methods and concluded that a valuation using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP) was apt for this specific scenario. </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Let's delve deeper into the proceedings. <br /><br /><b>Background </b><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">ABD Limited (ABD), a South African telecommunications company with global subsidiaries, referred to as "Opcos”, granted licenses for use its intellectual property to these Opcos. These Opcos have local shareholders in each country, with ABD being a significant shareholder. In return for these licenses, the parent company received royalties, calculated at 1% of the Opcos' profits, a figure it settled on based on recommendations from a consultancy hired by ABD. <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmBR4NR4VE_-ZupzeMclP8B2c_EH81GLtRFaEUYL1SeM9_4J7VLXfECNpiR_2ZOevcHx2PBNnMBh2i4MfjVmM2fqz9CSEPeTpphCgX3n-w5glBhwmOVHiFeEsIxDayJTHXivepVrJ_KUJPyFjbRppEnmotWJm8XFjmW9f0fmvsXW1trIEwQmaRnA/s1276/Screenshot%202024-03-10%20at%204.30.21%E2%80%AFPM.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="936" data-original-width="1276" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmBR4NR4VE_-ZupzeMclP8B2c_EH81GLtRFaEUYL1SeM9_4J7VLXfECNpiR_2ZOevcHx2PBNnMBh2i4MfjVmM2fqz9CSEPeTpphCgX3n-w5glBhwmOVHiFeEsIxDayJTHXivepVrJ_KUJPyFjbRppEnmotWJm8XFjmW9f0fmvsXW1trIEwQmaRnA/s320/Screenshot%202024-03-10%20at%204.30.21%E2%80%AFPM.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://www.peachesandpaprika.com/2016/04/tax-interference-by-cats.html"><b>If AI did the work, would we pay taxes...</b></a></i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Initially, the Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service (the Commissioner), accepted ABD's calculations following the advice of its own expert. However, after a transfer pricing audit, the Commissioner issued an additional assessment based on the evaluation of a second expert, determining that the 1% royalty rate was not a fair market price. Instead, the Commissioner set the royalty rate at 3%, resulting in a much greater liability for ABD. <br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Choice of method </b><br />The Court had to determine which royalty rate most closely indicated that the fair market price was charged for the royalties. A necessary corollary of this enquiry being an evaluation of the methods used to determine the value of the intellectual property as applied by the different experts. <br /><br />ABD and the Commissioner both subscribed to and accepted the <b><a href="https://www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing/oecd-transfer-pricing-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises-and-tax-administrations-20769717.htm">OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations</a></b> (OECD Guidelines) as guidance for calculating the fair market price of the intellectual property. <br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> The OECD Guidelines provide five common methods that are acceptable to nearly all tax authorities. What was at issue between the parties in the present case was whether the correct method in this matter was either the Transactional Profit Split Method (TPS method) or the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP). </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Transactional Profit Split Method (TPS method) </b><br />The Commissioner relied on the TPS method for his additional assessment. This method is understood to involve examining the net operating profits realised from the transactions between ABD and its Opcos and then splitting those profits between these entities on a basis that approximates the division of profits that would have been agreed to during market-based negotiations. <br /><br />The TPS method-related calculation involved firstly investigating how much more a buyer of ABD branded products was willing to pay versus unbranded products. This was termed the willingness to pay techniques (WTP). It began with surveying some nearly 4000 direct consumers and business customers in six of the fourteen markets ABD was active to determine the ‘value of the brand’. <br /><br />Based on this, what follows is an accounting exercise which aims to isolate the branded value from the non-branded value, ascertain the revenue from the sale of ABD branded products, then approximating a reasonable share of the profit to be apportioned to each party. <br /><br />There were multiple criticisms levelled against this expansive evaluation exercise. The most fatal criticism was that the expert premised his valuation on the legal error that the trade marks and other intellectual property licenced to the Opcos were transferred with the goodwill in ABD’s business. The transfer of goodwill was in fact explicitly excluded from all but one of the branding licensing agreements. <br /><br />Given the value of goodwill to businesses, this mistake would naturally lead to an inflated projected royalty rate. The assumption related to this mistake also contaminated the rest of the process from the onset, including in the framing of the survey questions issued to ABD’s customers. <br /><b><br />Comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP method) </b><br />ABD relied of the CUP method. This method involved comparing the royalty rate charged by ABD to a comparable royalty rate charged previously in similar circumstances. The comparison seeks to replicate how market forces have acted, with contingencies for the differences between the past and present transaction built into the calculation. <br /><br />The comparable transaction identified by ABD involved the sale of one of its subsidiaries based in Cyprus to a third party (the Cyprus transaction). The now independently owned entity in Cyprus then concluded a brand licence agreement with ABD on substantively the same terms (and royalty rate) as ABD’s Opcos. ABD argued that this brand licence agreement was a suitable CUP candidate as the parties were at arm’s length when the agreement was concluded. <br /><br />Overall, although there were some valid criticisms levelled against some of assumptions and techniques applied when this method was used, the Court found the Cyprus transaction’s CUP the most persuasive. The Court held that the result most resembles what would been achieved in a marked-based arms-length negotiation. This contrasts with the TPS method which, whether completed using steps used by the Commissioner’s expert or with another technique, yielded widely different outcomes, <br /><br /><b>Comment </b><br />The Tax Court of South Africa is specialist statutory court that is restricted to the issue under review and does not create legal precedent. Nevertheless, although this judgment is not binding, its reasoning may be persuasive and even instructional to IP valuation practitioners given the depth of the Court’s expertise and its sound analysis. <br /><br />Similarly, inasmuch as the CUP method was suitable where an appropriate past transaction was available for the comparison, the circumstances of other matters may not be as favourable. <br /><br />Furthermore, as is evident from the vague language used by the experts in describing a bundle of intellectual property rights ( “brand”, “brand licence”, “brand value” and the like), it is easy in trade mark valuations to conflate the value of the potential market with the clearly delineated and strictly licensable intellectual property rights. <br /><br />Considering this and in circumstances such as these where intellectual property is the primary subject matter of the valuation or the dispute, the parties would benefit greatly from consulting an intellectual property practitioner to avoid basic errors in law that other type of experts may inadvertently fall into. <br /><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>Chijioke Okoriehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00140789696700616074noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-50581632081218063992024-03-10T15:43:00.040+00:002024-03-10T16:56:41.285+00:00Sunday Surprises <div style="text-align: justify;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href=" https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTRiHDZys-nDkGzZxpvCtOIiTK6y94j54g_OyzbDmsAICgPasVMihnJsYF2tmZ8vux_RxkSl1nRcQ28Sevz0O2dZjRX_wQEr-VjADb6DHLV0P1xA8WaPetCyrBejXIPIH1ALVOPgAY05echH-tylkjBJ1WGtiGu3hNBPb7NvLdbNU0Lv-n__rY7w/s626/conference-cat-ai-generated-image_268835-5930.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="417" data-original-width="626" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTRiHDZys-nDkGzZxpvCtOIiTK6y94j54g_OyzbDmsAICgPasVMihnJsYF2tmZ8vux_RxkSl1nRcQ28Sevz0O2dZjRX_wQEr-VjADb6DHLV0P1xA8WaPetCyrBejXIPIH1ALVOPgAY05echH-tylkjBJ1WGtiGu3hNBPb7NvLdbNU0Lv-n__rY7w/s320/conference-cat-ai-generated-image_268835-5930.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>With a new week just about to start, readers are informed about relevant developments in the IP world.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Forthcoming events</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">New events and conferences are added to <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/for-your-delectation.html">our Events page</a> </b>continuously, so do not forget to check it out regularly!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: justify;">Reminder of IPKat event ‘(Re-)discovering the copyright basics – Originality after <i>THJ v Sheridan</i>’ (14 March)</h4><div style="text-align: justify;">The IPKat is thrilled to announce that, in the evening of 14 March 2024, a stellar panel has been gathered to discuss the Court of Appeal of England and Wales judgment in <i>THJ v Sheridan</i> [2023] EWCA Civ 1354 regarding copyright originality in certain graphic user interfaces (GUIs). You can attend either in person (on a first-come-first-served basis!) or on Zoom. See <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/ipkat-event-announcement-re-discovering.html"><b>here</b></a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: justify;">CIPIL Annual Intellectual Property Lecture on ‘Physicalism in Intellectual Property’ (12 March)</h4><div style="text-align: justify;">The 2024 Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture, 'Physicalism in Intellectual Property', organized by the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) will be held at Emmanuel College, Queen's Building Lecture Theatre at Cambridge University on March 12th at 17:30pm. Register and read more about the lecture <a href="https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/press/events/2024/03/2024-annual-international-intellectual-property-lecture-physicalism-intellectual-property"><b>here</b></a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: justify;">Webinar on navigating intellectual property in sustainable fashion (13 March)</h4><div style="text-align: justify;">4IPCouncil is organizing a webinar on second-hand luxury markets on 13 March at 16:00 CET. Register for the webinar <a href="https://www.4ipcouncil.com/research/navigating-intellectual-property-sustainable-fashion"><b>here</b></a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: justify;">IMRO and Law Society Annual Copyright Lecture (1 May)</h4><div style="text-align: justify;">The 5th annual IMRO/Law Society of Ireland Copyright Lecture will be held in Dublin on 1 May, 18:00 – 19:30. The theme of the lecture is ‘Music Copyright: The Text and Data Mining Exceptions and the EU's AI Act’. The event is an in-person event and will not be available online. Read more about the speakers and register <a href="https://www.lawsociety.ie/education--cpd/Courses/product-details/?pid=3252"><b>here</b></a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Conferences and Symposia</h3><h4 style="text-align: justify;"><b>Copyright conference in Namur, Belgium (8 – 9 April)</b></h4><div style="text-align: justify;">Organized by the Belgian presidency of the Council of the European Union in Namur, the main theme of the conference is the action of the EU and its Member States in favour of fair remuneration of authors, performers and creative industries in the digital content landscape. It will be held between 8 and 9 April. For further information about the agenda and topic, see <a href="https://belgian-presidency.consilium.europa.eu/en/events/copyright-conference/"><b>here</b></a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: justify;">AI Disrupting Law Online Symposium 2024, Chicago-Kent Law Review Online Symposium (26 April)</h4><div style="text-align: justify;">At the Chicago-Kent Law Review’s Online Symposium on AI Disrupting Law, leading IP scholars from around the world will discuss some of the major challenges posed by AI. Register and read more about the symposium <a href="https://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/live-symposia/ai-disrupting-law-symposium/"><b>here</b></a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: justify;">2024 European Copyright Society (ESC) Conference on conflict and trust in the European copyright system (24 May)</h4><div style="text-align: justify;">The 2024 ECS conference will address current conflicts over the scope and enforcement of European copyright law and look for ways to resolve them in a trustworthy manner and with a balanced outcome. Register and read more about the program <a href="https://www.jura.uni-frankfurt.de/148550701/2024_European_Copyright_Society_Conference"><b>here</b></a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: justify;">42nd ATRIP Congress: intellectual property, ethical innovation, and sustainability – Towards a new social contract for the digital economy? (30 June – 3 July)</h4><div style="text-align: justify;">The 42nd ATRIP Congress will explore how intellectual property laws and their enforcement need to be conceived and applied in order to foster ethical innovation and/or sustainability. The Congress will be held at LUISS University in Rome on 30 June - 3 July. Read more about the program and learn about the call for papers <a href="https://atriprome2024.org/"><b>here</b></a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Campaigns</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">The UK IPO’s campaign ‘Choose Safe not Fake’ targets beauty and hygiene products, with research by the IPO finding that many consumers are not aware of the risks of using unlawful products. Insights produced for the IPO to underpin this new campaign identified that consumers purchasing such products wrongly assumed them to be produced in similar – or even the same - conditions as genuine ones and were typically unaware of related health risks. This new campaign supports the IPO's commitments to raise public understanding, and ultimately respect, for IP rights. Read more about it <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/choose-safe-not-fake-campaign-targets-beauty-and-hygiene-counterfeits"><b>here</b></a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">In memoriam: Prof. Antoon Quaedvlieg</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">It is with great sadness that we need to report on the sudden passing of <b><a href="https://www.ru.nl/en/about-us/news/professor-antoon-quaedvlieg-passed-away">Prof. Antoon Quaedvlieg</a></b> on 28 February 2024.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here is what ALAI writes:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Antoon has been of tremendous importance to the development and study of copyright and intellectual property in the Netherlands and abroad. As professor of intellectual property law at the Radboud University Nijmegen Antoon trained generations of IP scholars and practitioners. As a legal practitioner himself and as a deputy district court judge and appellate court justice he has shaped our case law. In 2010 Antoon was appointed to the Copyright Committee that advises the government on legislative matters.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Antoon has been an active member of ALAI, both as a member of the Executive Committee and as a vice president and member of the Bureau. Antoon was a board member of the Dutch Group since 1992 and served as president from 2004 to 2011. We look back at this with utmost gratitude and will continue to remember Antoon’s role in the passionate discussions we have had during our scientific meetings.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">We are privileged to have known Antoon and to experience his charm, eloquence, wit, sense of humor and kindness.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Rest in peace, Antoon.</div></blockquote><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Vacancy: Lecturer in intellectual property law, University of Leeds </h3><div style="text-align: justify;">The University of Leeds is currently looking to recruit a Lecturer in IP law. The position is well suited to someone who is finishing/recently completed their PhD and is looking for their first academic role. The School is in particular need of specialists in copyright law, although the position could be open to someone who specialises in another area of IP, as long as they are willing to teach copyright. Read more about the opening <a href="https://jobs.leeds.ac.uk/Vacancy.aspx?id=41995&forced=2"><b>here</b></a>.</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="background: white; color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>Nedim Malovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00919042272306256792noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67696452088274009182024-03-07T18:33:00.002+00:002024-03-08T11:59:18.140+00:00Book Review and Discount: Propriété intellectuelle et développement durable / Intellectual Property & Sustainable Development<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This Kat is delighted to present a review of Propriété intellectuelle et développement durable / Intellectual Property & Sustainable Development, edited by Prof. </span><a href="https://www.unige.ch/droit/en/collaborateur/professeurs/dewerra-jacques/" style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Jacques de Werra</b></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> (University of Geneva). Marking the 16th volume in the </span><b style="font-family: inherit;"><a href=" https://www.unige.ch/droit/pi/publications/pi-ip/">p®opriété intelle©tuelle - intelle©tual p®operty</a></b><span style="font-family: inherit;"> collection, this book features contributions by seven authors. The chapters emerged following the </span><a href="http://www.jdpi.ch/" style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Journée de Droit de la Propriété Intellectuelle</b></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, which took place at the University of Geneva in collaboration with the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property and the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property on February 7, 2023.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfiZ_6SII_HxwbcV7xYZ6hzdY1U-BLZzKKiPYO3sI3ozfUOgcsn9sMY5DkBNyWQuu0DoxVmuGxQpG9OLQdX4T-NcGCvquEqycqezwNnXzLVLkihcZTnp59Aj9VDLDC5sydCvwcDdR8_Bvdn8GgF0kPyAyAhguhj8XBXuIsu9LINTNqzwQ6tv9o/s1705/Screenshot%202024-03-07%20at%203.57.51%E2%80%AFPM.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1705" data-original-width="1177" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfiZ_6SII_HxwbcV7xYZ6hzdY1U-BLZzKKiPYO3sI3ozfUOgcsn9sMY5DkBNyWQuu0DoxVmuGxQpG9OLQdX4T-NcGCvquEqycqezwNnXzLVLkihcZTnp59Aj9VDLDC5sydCvwcDdR8_Bvdn8GgF0kPyAyAhguhj8XBXuIsu9LINTNqzwQ6tv9o/s320/Screenshot%202024-03-07%20at%203.57.51%E2%80%AFPM.png" width="221" /></a></div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The raison d'être of this book is encapsulated in the editor's acknowledgment of sustainability as a significant societal concern with far-reaching implications across various legal domains. The collection comprises a diverse array of perspectives, each focusing specifically on a different subject of the intersection of sustainability with IP. <br /></span></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Olivia Dhordain's chapter, “Luxury, IP, and Sustainability - A Perspective”, illuminates the intersection of luxury and sustainability through the lens of a practitioner as she employs a series of “What ifs” to delve into potential pro-sustainability advancements in IP. </span></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Then, Nicolas Binctin's piece, “La lutte contre l'écoblanchiment (greenwashing) - Défis et développements récents” stands as the sole contribution in French, yet it sets itself apart with an in-depth examination of the deceptive practice of greenwashing within the scope of unfair competition law. </span></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In “How the IP System Promotes Sustainability - the WIPO GREEN Initiative”, Peter Oksen and Edward Kwakwa explain the function of the reworked WIPO GREEN database and its connection to the WIPO’s Green Technology Book and other acceleration projects. </span></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In “Does Intellectual Property Promote or Hinder Sustainability? The Case of Upcycling”, Irene Calboli and Siroos Tanner address the IP dimension of upcycling and explore ways to prevent this environmentally friendly practice from being hindered by claims of potential trademark and copyright infringement. </span></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Finally, in "The TRIPS Agreement and the Sustainable Disposal of IP-Infringing Goods - Lessons from WTO Dispute Settlement Cases," Wolf R. Meier-Ewert offers a meticulous analysis of Article 46 TRIPS as he underscores the role of proportionality for national authorities when ordering remedies for IP-infringing goods, arguing that destruction should be considered as ultima ratio-like remedy available to them.</span></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Among all these contributions, here are some additional thoughts regarding this Kat's favorite, that is Calboli and Tanner’s chapter.</span></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Likely influenced by the eco-conscious Swedish lifestyle and the general hype around upcycling and reinvention, especially in the fashion scene, it was inevitable for this Kat to be intrigued by this particular chapter. Despite having a solely U.S.-centred perspective, it — unsurprisingly —managed to grasp the essence of the topic globally. Setting aside copyright implications, the authors managed to succinctly encapsulate the entire issue of upcycling in the following 49 words: </span></div></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><blockquote>Under current IP rules, upcycling could constitute trademark infringement, trademark dilution, tarnishment, false advertising, and unfair competition. In addition, a recurrent complaint by trademark owners, particularly of luxury products, is that upcycling could hide counterfeited products, especially when the goods are sold in large quantities and are sold online.</blockquote></i></span></div></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The trademark challenges faced by practitioners of upcycling techniques are unlikely to be resolved in the current state. While the doctrine of exhaustion may not provide a viable solution in cases involving “material differences”, the principle of fair use can be effectively employed as “<i>unrelated parties can use a mark to identify or refer to the trademarked product so long as the reference does not suggest endorsement or affiliation</i>”. The analysis concludes with a review of recent US cases. Unfortunately, some of these disputes ended in out-of-court settlements, leaving the circular economy market without clear judicial guidance.</span></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Overall impression</b> </span></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This edited collection adeptly navigates the highly topical issue of sustainability and its correlation with the different intellectual property “ecosystems”, investigating not only issues related to patents and trademarks but also touching upon copyright and unfair competition law. Beyond presenting a thought-provoking exploration, the true asset of this work is its versatility by integrating diverse perspectives from both practice and academia. It stands as a distinctive contribution to the ongoing dialogue that undoubtedly will be appreciated by researchers and practitioners alike. </span></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Details: </b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Available in Hardback & Paperback </span></div></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Extent 112 </span></div></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">ISBN 978-3-7255-8968-5</span></div></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Publisher Schulthess Médias Juridiques SA </span></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">For those wishing to purchase the book, a special discount has kindly been provided by Schulthess, available </span><a href="https://www.schulthess.com/verlag/detail/ISBN-9783725589685/de-Werra-Jacques/Propriete-intellectuelle-et-developpement-durable?CSPCHD=003001000000OW81IMwSYt0000R$a2qIiie4wjIMtfxGOilw--"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>here </b></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">until 07/04/2024.</span></div>Antonios Barishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07386235814468137494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8352547848258683532024-03-07T07:45:00.006+00:002024-03-16T22:07:18.410+00:00Interested in exploring AI in fashion? New Fashion Law London event on 13 May (with 15% discount for IPKat readers)<div style="text-align: justify;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0ykY164_tpKy47oG6LejD8VHQqgx_zy8wh4cUdVD_LClu7tQi3yTrNTl79XjfcETkN9D9NpHA1VAtyglOsmXmzvMkaTIcEE5t2N3MDsLIp2B7Wrzgi6p__VxSUm6gUdHMYafNjythwLyY9nJtt3Bhg7P3J334cjncIsElIsaUxfmnqCRWuxlK1w/s1200/Cats1688973642630.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0ykY164_tpKy47oG6LejD8VHQqgx_zy8wh4cUdVD_LClu7tQi3yTrNTl79XjfcETkN9D9NpHA1VAtyglOsmXmzvMkaTIcEE5t2N3MDsLIp2B7Wrzgi6p__VxSUm6gUdHMYafNjythwLyY9nJtt3Bhg7P3J334cjncIsElIsaUxfmnqCRWuxlK1w/w400-h225/Cats1688973642630.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Attendees ready to discuss all things fashion and AI<br /></i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been disrupting all industries and professional sectors. Fashion is no exception.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.fashionlawlondon.com/"><b>Fashion Law London</b></a> is delighted <b><a href="https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/fashion-reborn-the-age-of-ai-tickets-856338009037?aff=oddtdtcreator&discount=IPKAT">to host an event</a> </b>fully devoted to exploring the impact, challenges, and potential of AI for the fashion industry from a commercial, legal, and policy standpoint.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Join the discussion in central London or online (live streaming) on <b>Monday, 13 May</b>!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Topics</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">The event consists of 3 main blocks:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><ul><li>Block 1 maps uses of AI in fashion, having regard to both predictive and generative AI;</li><li>Block 2 explores the intellectual property (IP) dimension of AI in fashion, considering (i) liability for the training phase; (ii) liability for the use of AI tools in fashion; and (iii) protectability of AI-generated fashion outputs;</li><li>Block 3 is devoted to the regulatory, commercial, and data protection/privacy dimension. Among other things, it considers regulatory efforts around the globe, including the EU AI Act, and the applicability of the EU and UK data protection/privacy frameworks to AI development.</li></ul><br /></div><div><h3 style="text-align: left;">Confirmed speakers and block coordinators (in alphabetical order) </h3><a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/lord-justice-arnold/"></a><ul style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/lord-justice-arnold/"></a><li><a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/lord-justice-arnold/"></a><a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/lord-justice-arnold/"><b>Sir Richard Arnold, Lord Justice of Appeal, Court of Appeal of England and Wales</b></a></li><li><a href="https://www.twobirds.com/en/people/f/francine-cunningham"><b>Francine Cunningham, Regulatory and Public Affairs Director, Bird & Bird</b></a></li><li><a href="https://www.twobirds.com/en/people/a/adriano-d" ottavio=""><b>Adriano D'Ottavio, Counsel, Bird & Bird</b></a></li><li><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/giulia-gasparin-63422b84/?originalSubdomain=uk"><b>Giulia Gasparin, Co-Founder, Fashion Law London</b></a></li><li><b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/jurcys/">Paul Jurcys, Lecturer, Vilnius University Law Faculty, and Co-Founder, Prifina</a><br /></b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/kirstymcgregoruk/"><b>Kirsty McGregor, Executive European Editor, Vogue Business</b></a></li><li><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/eleonorarosati/"><b>Eleonora Rosati, Co-Founder, Fashion Law London</b></a></li><li><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/spyridon-sipetas/"><b>Spyridon Sipetas, Director of Outreach, Fashion Law London</b></a></li><li><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/natalie-varma-27411661/"><b>Natalie Varma, Director of Product, Innovation, Inspiration and Engagement, Farfetch</b></a></li><li><a href="https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/people/united-kingdom/london/xuyang-zhu"><b>Xuyang Zhu, Senior Counsel, Taylor Wessing</b></a></li></ul></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Agenda*</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">13:30 - 14:00: Arrivals and registrations</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">14:00 - 14:10: Welcome and introduction</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;">Giulia Gasparin</div><div style="text-align: right;">Eleonora Rosati</div><div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">14:10 - 15:00: Mapping uses of AI in fashion</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;">Paul Jurcys</div><div style="text-align: right;">Kirsty McGregor</div><div style="text-align: right;">Natalie Varma</div><div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">15:00 - 15:30: Coffee break</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">15:30 - 16:50: The IP dimension of AI in fashion</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;">Sir Richard Arnold</div><div style="text-align: right;">Eleonora Rosati</div><div style="text-align: right;">Spyridon Sipetas</div><div style="text-align: right;">Xuyang Zhu</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">16:50 - 18:00: The regulatory, commercial, and data protection dimension of AI in fashion</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;">Francine Cunningham</div><div style="text-align: right;">Adriano D'Ottavio</div><div style="text-align: right;">Giulia Gasparin</div><div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">18:00 - 18:10: Concluding remarks</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">18:10 - 19:00: Networking drinks</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>* All times are BST time zone (UK time)</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">How to register</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">For further information and to register <span style="background-color: white;"><b><a href="https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/fashion-reborn-the-age-of-ai-tickets-856338009037?aff=oddtdtcreator&discount=IPKAT">click here</a></b></span>. IPKat readers are automatically entitled to a <b>15% discount</b> in the registration fee.</div><p></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #50555c; font-family: outfit, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.45; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; white-space-collapse: preserve; width: 968.516px;"></p><div data-block="true" data-editor="65kgf" data-offset-key="45ghi-0-0" style="line-height: 1.45;"></div>Eleonora Rosatihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-61839931824499521962024-03-06T15:44:00.001+00:002024-03-06T15:46:01.642+00:00Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!<p><b>If you've been so busy this week that you're having kittens</b>, here's the summary of the IP news you missed:</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Trade Marks and GIs</h3><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQnoO8jKIdZb1-TOTOlaxhf0FIlzSZccxqtdNSBQr8Mlmk0jnyoIufTSplVOaJJSZ0TT5GchyphenhyphenWvE26vhWWXQEr0qtCFnuubJaaUNZzQ3YR8HVM5o4Onl9GoUbfXqOXCZb9DgS6N8mQ_YBPBH1Srq2PHkTncnuPqsuFfwNCVv5T9dy2fHA8keaeCQ/s853/cat-3699032_1280.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="853" data-original-width="853" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQnoO8jKIdZb1-TOTOlaxhf0FIlzSZccxqtdNSBQr8Mlmk0jnyoIufTSplVOaJJSZ0TT5GchyphenhyphenWvE26vhWWXQEr0qtCFnuubJaaUNZzQ3YR8HVM5o4Onl9GoUbfXqOXCZb9DgS6N8mQ_YBPBH1Srq2PHkTncnuPqsuFfwNCVv5T9dy2fHA8keaeCQ/s320/cat-3699032_1280.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Having kittens. <br />Image from kieutruongphoto via Pixabay.</td></tr></tbody></table>Anastasiia Kyrylenko <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/european-parliament-approves-regulation.html">informed</a></b> readers that the European Parliament adopted the <b><a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/agri/lcag/2023/12-04/AGRI_LA(2023)012101_EN.pdf">new Regulation</a></b> on geographical indications (GIs) for wines, spirit drinks and agricultural products. It consolidates the different categories of products into a single regulation, unlike the former system of having separate legal acts for each product category. Amongst several other changes, the EUIPO will take on some administrative functions (but will not have a role in examination, which it does for craft and industrial products).<p></p><p>Marcel Pemsel <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/when-is-lawyer-sufficiently-independent.html">discussed</a></b> the recent case of <i>bonnanwalt v EUIPO</i> (<b><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=BA5B3D5FB6B7C33DA3028680DDF9DB31?text=&docid=282269&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=697203">Case C-580/22</a></b>), which addressed the meaning of a "lawyer" under EU law, for the purposes of representation at the CJEU. The case focused on the fact that bonnanwalt's lawyer was the sole employee of a law firm owned and managed by bonnanwalt's managing director, raising the issue that the lawyer was not sufficiently independent from their client. Rather surprisingly, the CJEU considered that there was nevertheless a lack of a direct relationship between the lawyer and bonnanwalt, so the lawyer was not acting under the control of the managing director of bonnanwalt.</p><p>Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/ei-toro-loco-when-monster-truck-show.html">analysed</a></b> a recent decision of the Tribunal Judiciaire of Paris in a dispute concerning both copyright and trade mark infringement. The organiser of televised motor sport events called "Monster Jam" owned the trade mark "El TORO LOCO", and brought an action against another show that featured a monster truck named “EI TORO Del FUEGO”. The Tribunal held that there was both trade mark and copyright infringement.</p><div>Anna Maria Stein <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/ukipos-second-report-on-social-medial.html">outlined</a></b> the findings of the UKIPO's <b><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-media-influencers-and-counterfeit-goods-wave-2/the-impact-of-complicit-social-media-influencers-on-males-consumption-of-counterfeit-goods-in-the-uk">report</a></b> on “The impact of complicit social media influencers on male’s consumption of counterfeit goods in the UK.” The report was released just a few days after the European Commission published the <b><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_708">results</a></b> of an investigation into online influencers and the lack of transparency of the promotional content of their messages.</div><div> </div><h3 style="text-align: left;">Copyright and Designs</h3><p>Alessandro Cerri <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/m-gin-joys-registered-design-victory.html">reported</a></b> on the recent decision of the Court of Appeal of England & Wales, which upheld the design infringement claim brought by Marks and Spencer (M&S) against Aldi over its look-alike range of gin-based flavoured liqueurs. He wonders whether this outcome will prompt retailers to shift their IP strategy towards more design protection for their products. </p><p>Chijioke Okorie <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/long-walk-to-copyright-reform-7-south.html">updated</a></b> readers on the progress of the South African <b><a href="https://pmg.org.za/bill/705/">Copyright Amendment Bill</a></b>., which was passed by the National Council of Provinces with amendments to align the Bill with certain constitutional provisions. In particular, the amendments addressed the issues raised in <b><i><a href="https://collections.concourt.org.za/handle/20.500.12144/36956">Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition</a></i></b> about access to copyright works for persons with disabilities.</p><p>Katfriends <b><a href="https://www.brayandkrais.com/bk-lawyers/monica-thornell/">Monica Thornell</a></b> and <b><a href="https://www.brayandkrais.com/bk-lawyers/jonathan-coote/">Jonathan Coote</a></b> <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/guest-post-sony-fails-in-strike-out.html">discussed</a></b> the latest in the <b><i><a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/128.html">Redding and Mitchell v Sony Music</a></i></b> case about the copyright and performers’ rights in the iconic recordings made by The Jimi Hendrix Experience (JHE), which will be going to trial in the High Court of England & Wales. Sony had applied for summary judgment, but the claimants successfully argued that various issues needed to be fleshed out at trial, including the question about whether an initial consent to the first fixation extends to the exploitation of recordings via drastically different technology (i.e. digital streaming).</p><p>Hayleigh Bosher <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/book-review-music-borrowing-and.html">reviewed</a></b> the book, <b><i><a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/music-borrowing-and-copyright-law-9781509949403/">Music Borrowing and Copyright Law, a Genre-by-Genre Analysis</a></i></b>, edited by <b><a href="https://www.city.ac.uk/about/people/academics/enrico-bonadio">Enrico Bonadio</a></b> and <b><a href="https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/law/zhu-chen">Chen Wei Zhu</a></b>. The volume brings together contributions from academics, musicologists, and lawyers to offer some answers to the question, “how can the law better align with the expectations of musicians with the structures of copyright?” </p>Jocelyn Bossehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14966228076523914309noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25382454739199394192024-03-06T08:08:00.010+00:002024-03-06T08:10:09.279+00:00Long walk to copyright reform #8: South Africa's Parliament passes the revised Copyright Amendment Bill<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Last week, South Africa’s National Assembly passed (again) the <b><a href="https://pmg.org.za/bill/705/">Copyright Amendment Bill</a></b> (CAB) and <b><a href="https://static.pmg.org.za/B24B-2016_Performers_Protection.pdf">Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill</a> </b>(PPAB). The Bill has now been transmitted to the President for his assent (or referral to the Constitutional Court). <br /></span></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The (second) passing of the CAB and PPAB was to address the reservations expressed by the South African President in 2020. Readers who have been following the <b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/search/max-results=7?q=Long+walk+to+copyright+reform">Long walk series</a></b> will remember that the President’s reservations related to issues around constitutionality of the two bills. Such readers would also recall that in 2021, the National Assembly <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/06/long-walk-to-copyright-reform-4-south.html"><b>rescinded its previous decision</b></a> to pass the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Bill referred back to the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry for further consideration. In this regard, the National Assembly restricted the further consideration of the CAB to the issues around the reservations raised by the President. <br /></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBoiSmA9bl_PDv3z0eq3KYgIjK1-TTkum4oXpfMbN1c9z5r-iFj_ZcRyCn7DBZh7FPakLVfG4nitDXv98t7CAy8chLYde7MqZji5U34DnnEn6LJwPi2Aa94BkYMfk7BJQ7UfVm1Q7ruXM98m4vBS63jWlL2_cSyI2ArA1SpPBbg2QUk8TEuM56yA/s214/SA%20flag.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBoiSmA9bl_PDv3z0eq3KYgIjK1-TTkum4oXpfMbN1c9z5r-iFj_ZcRyCn7DBZh7FPakLVfG4nitDXv98t7CAy8chLYde7MqZji5U34DnnEn6LJwPi2Aa94BkYMfk7BJQ7UfVm1Q7ruXM98m4vBS63jWlL2_cSyI2ArA1SpPBbg2QUk8TEuM56yA/s1600/SA%20flag.png" /></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">To address the reservations expressed by the President, the National Assembly re-tagged the CAB (and the PPAB) as section 76 Bills (i.e., bills that affect cultural matters and trade). Public hearings were held and the amendments in the Bills were advertised for public comments and deliberations held on the comments received from the public.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">With all that done, the CAB (and the PPAB) are now before the President for his action. Whether the President will assent to the Bills or refer the Bills to the Constitutional Court for a decision, before the general elections in South Africa in May 2024 is anybody’s guess. By virtue of <b><a href="https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/constitution-republic-south-africa-1996-chapter-4-parliament-07-feb-1997#79">section 79 of the South African Constitution</a></b>, the President must decide whether the Bills fully accommodates his reservations and if they do, he must assent to and sign them. Otherwise, he must refer the Bills to the Constitutional Court for a decision on their constitutionality. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Stay tuned… <br /><br />Follow the long walk: </span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p> <b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/06/long-walk-to-copyright-reform-south.html">Long Walk to Copyright Reform #1</a> <br /><br /></span></b> <b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/05/long-walk-to-copyright-reform-pt-2.html">Long Walk to Copyright Reform #2</a> <br /><br /></span></b> <b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/07/long-walk-to-copyright-reform-pt-3-what.html">Long Walk to Copyright Reform #3</a> <br /><br /></span></b> <b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/06/long-walk-to-copyright-reform-4-south.html">Long Walk to Copyright Reform #4</a> <br /><br /></span></b> <b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/02/long-walk-to-copyright-reform-5a.html">Long Walk to Copyright Reform #5A</a> <br /><br /></span></b> <b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/02/long-walk-to-copyright-reform-pt-5b.html">Long Walk to Copyright Reform #5B</a> <br /><br /></span></b> <span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/06/guest-post-long-walk-to-copyright.html">Long Walk to Copyright Reform #6</a> <br /><br /><a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/long-walk-to-copyright-reform-7-south.html">Long Walk to Copyright Reform #7</a></b> <br /><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /><br /></span></p>Chijioke Okoriehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00140789696700616074noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-78148859824050873782024-03-05T17:26:00.001+00:002024-03-05T17:26:24.016+00:00When in Rome, do as the Romans do? Rome court ‘misinterprets’ CJEU YouTube judgment and reduces criteria for primary liability of platform operators to checklist<div style="text-align: justify;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQYiXoKwFf2mbsjXs2wI4d9H5t4VG15RBkenL3IjfLnIy4emzRSO4KAWM-fNNbnxigw2S1uEOOfZVrLJmcVZab921tXFomUsq_GNI6rr55OKALeJGQPfYUD1N-ks2BY-RZpwNWyyIx9WwBfs9qz2VBmP4nlauDCEkGd-FcCvxACfv1pFOsgTuaOA/s1098/michel015.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1098" data-original-width="778" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQYiXoKwFf2mbsjXs2wI4d9H5t4VG15RBkenL3IjfLnIy4emzRSO4KAWM-fNNbnxigw2S1uEOOfZVrLJmcVZab921tXFomUsq_GNI6rr55OKALeJGQPfYUD1N-ks2BY-RZpwNWyyIx9WwBfs9qz2VBmP4nlauDCEkGd-FcCvxACfv1pFOsgTuaOA/s320/michel015.jpg" width="227" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Michelangelo's Cumaean Sybil in <br />the Sistine Chapel</i><br /><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>In the ancient Greek and Roman world, sybils were priestesses who acted as gods’ intermediaries with the mortals to anticipate future events. Their prophecies, however, were delivered in obscure ways. Hence the adjective ‘sibylline’, which refers to messages that are not immediately intelligible or remain cryptic <i>tout court</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Fast forward to today and the world of copyright and you see that, in Rome, the ancient sybils appear to have been oddly replaced by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), whose judgments – rather than prophecies – seem to be difficult for national judges to comprehend fully and, therefore, apply correctly.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The thing, however, is that – unlike the famous Cumaean Sybil’s messages – the CJEU judgments are very much in the present and are way more intelligible. As such, they should not face the difficulties and – bluntly put – resistance that, instead, they have been encountering across multiple national courts.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The recent and somewhat ‘twin’ decisions of the Rome Court of First Instance in <i>RTI v Vimeo</i> (<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-_F1wYP4fXmqrktzefsW9WUcyKWNb4VU/view?usp=sharing"><b>decision 5700/2023</b></a>) and <i>RTI v V Kontakte </i>(<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/10rByH3KNlj-Zvxh4XSku40FVLaOJvjIt/view?usp=sharing"><b>decision 14531/2023</b></a>) are examples of both a misunderstanding and misapplication of CJEU case law, notably the 2021 judgment in <b><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-682/18"><i>YouTube</i>, C-682/18 and C-683/18</a> [IPKat <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/search/max-results=7?q=C-682%2F18">here</a>]</b>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">How we got to <i>YouTube</i></h3><div style="text-align: justify;">To understand <i>YouTube</i>, it is necessary to frame it within its broader context, notably the earlier judgment in <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&T,F&num=c-610-15"><b><i>Ziggo</i>, C-610/15</b></a> concerning the infamous Pirate Bay <b>[IPKat <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/search/max-results=7?q=c-610%2F15">here</a>]</b>. There, the CJEU ruled for the first time that a platform operator could be liable – on a <i>primary</i> (direct) basis – for acts of communication/making available to the public within the meaning of Article 3 <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32001L0029"><b>InfoSoc Directive</b></a> by facilitating the finding of unlawful content.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Following that ruling, a debate ensued as to whether the holding that internet platform operators may, in certain conditions, be held primarily liable for performing copyright-restricted acts could be extended to less egregious scenarios than piracy-focused ones.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Despite the <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=228712&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5747900"><b>contrary view</b></a> of Advocate General (AG) Saugmandsgaard Øe, the Grand Chamber of the CJEU answered ‘yes’ in YouTube, focusing – as the determinative benchmark – on whether the platform operator’s role may be regarded as <i>indispensable</i> and <i>deliberate</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">To this end, it is necessary to consider if the platform operator at issue:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><ul><li>Refrains from implementing appropriate technological measures that can be expected from a diligent operator in the specific circumstances at issue to counter <i>credibly</i> and <i>effectively</i> copyright infringements on its platform;</li><li>Participates in selecting protected content unlawfully communicated to the public;</li><li>Provides tools specifically intended for the unlawful sharing of protected content or knowingly promotes such sharing, which may be attested by the fact that that operator has adopted a financial model that encourages users of its platform unlawfully to communicate protected content to the public via that platform.</li></ul></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The mere circumstance that a platform operator has abstract knowledge that unlawful content may be shared by its users is insufficient, and so is the circumstance that it operates on a for-profit basis. Nevertheless, in either case, the assessment leads to a different outcome if a rightholder has provided a specific notification and the platform operator has refrained from acting expeditiously to remove or disable access to that content.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In sum, <i>YouTube</i> clarifies two key things:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><ul><li>The first is that the possibility of holding a platform operator directly liable for acts of communication to the public in relation to content uploaded by its users is not limited to egregious scenarios (in this sense, there is material continuity between CJEU case law on Article 3 InfoSoc Directive and Article 17 <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj"><b>DSM Directive</b></a> (adopted two years prior, in 2019, though the latter is not a codification of the former);</li><li>The second is that, in order to establish liability, a multi-factorial assessment needs to be undertaken. Importantly, such an assessment should not be intended as a formal ‘checklist’, but rather as entailing a balancing exercise.</li></ul><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">The Rome decisions</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">Without commenting on the outcome of either case (the platforms at issue – Vimeo and VK – were ultimately held not liable), the Rome decisions are problematic because they misunderstand the CJEU <i>YouTube</i> judgment. This is so for the following reasons.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: justify;">Misunderstanding of <i>YouTube</i></h4><div style="text-align: justify;">First, the Rome Court of First Instance saw an incompatibility between the CJEU holding in <i>YouTube</i> and earlier case law of the Rome courts (as well as the Italian Supreme Court, notably decisions <a href="https://www.italgiure.giustizia.it/xway/application/nif/clean/hc.dll?verbo=attach&db=snciv&id=./20190319/snciv@s10@a2019@n07708@tS.clean.pdf"><b>7708/2019</b></a> and <b><a href="https://www.italgiure.giustizia.it/xway/application/nif/clean/hc.dll?verbo=attach&db=snciv&id=./20190319/snciv@s10@a2019@n07709@tS.clean.pdf">7709/2019</a> [IPKat <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/03/italian-supreme-court-clarifies.html">here</a>]</b>), which had instead pre-dated <i>YouTube </i>by establishing the primary liability of certain platforms even outside egregious scenarios <i>à la</i> Pirate Bay.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Rome court misinterpreted the CJEU, claiming that, there, the Grand Chamber would have indicated that activities like filtering, selection, indexing, organization, classification, aggregation, evaluation, use, modification, extraction, or promotion of user-uploaded content could not trigger liability – in contrast with the earlier Italian decisions..</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is incorrect. The CJEU qualified all these activities by (i) distinguishing between lawful and unlawful content (not any content) and ultimately (ii) only endorsing those aimed at countering credibly and effectively the presence of the latter type of content on the platform at hand.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, <i>YouTube</i> concerned the primary liability of a platform operator not, as the Rome court appears to think, a situation in which a platform operator might become liable on a secondary basis due to the inapplicability of the hosting safe harbour.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In sum: the Rome court misinterpreted the holding and place of <i>YouTube</i> when it concluded that such a decision has ‘deeply changed the approach to [the treatment of] hosting provider[s] as [previously] emerged within the Rome Court of First Instance […], as upheld by the Court of Appeal of Rome and the <br />Supreme Court’.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: justify;">Reduction of <i>YouTube</i> evaluation criteria to formal checklist</h4><div style="text-align: justify;">Secondly, the Rome court unduly reduced the guidance in <i>YouTube</i> to a formal (and empty) checklist, and even failed to apply it in its completeness.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">By reading the judgments, the primary liability of the platform operators in question was ruled out by considering that they had:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><ul><li>Stated in their terms not to infringe copyright and other third-party rights;</li><li>Automatically – instead of manually – indexed content;</li><li>Required users to create an account;</li><li>Had a notice-and-take down functionality; and</li><li>Most of the revenue generated derived from user subscriptions rather than advertising.</li></ul></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This, as detailed, is not what <i>YouTube</i> mandates.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgovxtQ5B93upFOye75trL6RMrjugRvT0i7zGL0zZyp8uATHw14NkArLeBOTbIegaWr0E_LBMgVvGrKgh3yDolqP_NJ3ZkHWnjbpRnhIHEX6EZYL7kEs_bIJ8iqV66K2YHrvzdBgUG5wTEituWBn8otmgD7T-aFFb_z_UzPnLIytvbwJiOT-RyJ1A/s707/The-Kitten-Checklist.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="707" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgovxtQ5B93upFOye75trL6RMrjugRvT0i7zGL0zZyp8uATHw14NkArLeBOTbIegaWr0E_LBMgVvGrKgh3yDolqP_NJ3ZkHWnjbpRnhIHEX6EZYL7kEs_bIJ8iqV66K2YHrvzdBgUG5wTEituWBn8otmgD7T-aFFb_z_UzPnLIytvbwJiOT-RyJ1A/s320/The-Kitten-Checklist.png" width="226" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>IPKat-approved checklist ...</i></td></tr></tbody></table>What is required, instead, is a weighed considerations of all relevant circumstances, including evaluating the efforts made by the platform operator to counter credibly and effectively the spread of unlawful content, the amount of unlawful content effectively present on the platform vis-à-vis lawful content, and the platform’s overall business model.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: justify;">Primary (direct) and secondary (accessory/indirect) liability</h4><div style="text-align: justify;">Third, the Rome court did not correctly separate questions of primary (direct) and secondary (accessory/indirect) liability, with the hosting safe harbour under the Italian equivalent of Article 14 of the <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32000L0031"><b>Ecommerce Directive</b></a> (now <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065"><b>Article 6 DSA</b></a>) being only relevant to the latter.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Admittedly, in Italian case law, the divide between primary and secondary liability in relation to online intermediaries has remained ambiguous. Of course, this ambiguity is not exclusive to Italy.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, things have been made more complex by the objectively wide reach of CJEU case law and the resulting construction of the right of communication/making available to the public, as well as the persistent uncertainties regarding who and what the safe harbours would be for. In this sense, it is worth recalling that, in his Opinion in <i>YouTube</i>, AG Saugmandsgaard Øe held that the hosting safe harbour would apply ‘horizontally, to <i>all forms of liability</i>.’ Such a position is however incorrect if taken as to encompass own acts of the provider too.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">All the above is clear having regard to the wording of the Ecommerce Directive and CJEU case law dating as early as <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-236/08"><b><i>Google France and Google</i>, C-236/08 to C-238/08</b></a>. In <i>YouTube</i>, the Grand Chamber clarified once and for all that the safe harbours are only available to <i>intermediary</i> service providers. In other words: the safe harbours do <i>not</i> apply irrespective of the type of liability at hand.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If a national court found the platform operators at issue primarily liable for copyright infringement, they would be automatically disqualified from the hosting safe harbour. All this said, if a platform took proactive steps to avoid that infringing activities are performed by users of its service, this should not automatically exclude the application of the immunity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Such a conclusion is now crystallized in legislation: it is sufficient to look at Article 17 DSM Directive and Article 7 DSA. They clarify that that there is no safe harbour for platform operators holding primary responsibility/liability (Article 17 DSM Directive) and, where an intermediary is eligible for the safe harbours, taking steps to avoid infringements by users should not be a penalizing factor for such safe harbour eligibility (Article 7 DSA).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Yet, the Rome decisions conflate questions of primary and secondary liability and unduly consider that, if the platform is not primarily liable, then it is not secondarily liable either because the safe harbour would apply. This is by no means an automatic progression.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: justify;">Content of notices and monitoring obligations</h4><div style="text-align: justify;">Another point regarding these decisions is that the Rome court ‘departed’ from its earlier case law, with regard to the content of notices. In the past, the Rome courts had indicated that a notice does not need necessarily to indicate the URL at which the allegedly infringing content is to be found. With the most recent decisions, the Rome court aligns itself with the practice of other Italian courts (e.g., Milan and Turin), which have mandated a URL-indication requirement.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This, in itself, is not incorrect given the specific circumstances at hand. That said, it is incorrect to think that there is an obligation to indicate the URL in each and every case. In this sense, it is worth recalling that:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><ul><li>In 2019, the Italian Supreme Court also concluded that a notice must indicate the relevant URL only when this is ‘indispensable’ to identify the infringing content;</li><li>The law does not require necessarily the indication of the URL at which the allegedly infringing content is to be found for a notice to be considered validly submitted. In this sense, the Rome court erred once again when it held that the Grand Chamber in <i>YouTube </i>‘clearly required’ the indication of the URL at which the allegedly infringing content is found.</li></ul></div><div style="text-align: justify;">While the Ecommerce Directive did not specify what content notices must have, Article 16 DSA now provides a harmonized approach to notice and action mechanisms for providers of hosting services, by requiring notices to be ‘sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated’. This language codifies settled CJEU case law, notably <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-324/09"><b><i>L’Oréal</i>, C-324/09</b></a>, and provides for an obligation to indicate clearly the exact electronic location of the allegedly infringing content, such as the exact URL or URLs.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEc_oDmtFKfsCr48ntDDgk_xDDkeGpdgotexiupmNSmO30H_A-GJwgZFoR4tNvJAN6gB5o0QzcShXuHXZgIAZ844fqX8mwoJEDoRb4Ytu_u2qyfmESwGTETOUp-44g_i8tPLb2RkP_27mLb4qnl79qrbHFHnycAyhlU6lNr3E3yhLSnqtZ8EjnKA/s900/cat_chilling_under_palm_trees_on_a_beach_by_coolarts223_dg4vk68-fullview.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEc_oDmtFKfsCr48ntDDgk_xDDkeGpdgotexiupmNSmO30H_A-GJwgZFoR4tNvJAN6gB5o0QzcShXuHXZgIAZ844fqX8mwoJEDoRb4Ytu_u2qyfmESwGTETOUp-44g_i8tPLb2RkP_27mLb4qnl79qrbHFHnycAyhlU6lNr3E3yhLSnqtZ8EjnKA/s320/cat_chilling_under_palm_trees_on_a_beach_by_coolarts223_dg4vk68-fullview.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">.<i>.. and the only IPKat-approved palm leaves<br /><br /></i></td></tr></tbody></table>On a final note, the Rome court deemed the prohibition of general monitoring obligations under Article 15 of the Ecommerce Directive (now Article 8 DSA) as all-encompassing, without also considering the distinction between general (prohibited) and specific (allowed) obligations. In YouTube, the CJEU considered favourably the use of technologies that a diligent economic operator could be expected to adopt in order to counter credibly and effectively copyright infringements on its platform. Such technologies entail monitoring.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Conclusion</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">The reason why the Cumaean Sybil’s prophecies were so challenging to decipher is because, inspired by the gods, she used to transcribe them in hexameters on palm leaves, which were subsequently mixed up by the winds entering the cave close to Naples she operated from.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thankfully, this is not how judgments are drafted in Luxembourg. Hence, the difficulty of national courts in applying them appears hard to justify. Hopefully, future cases will be more respectful of the CJEU <strike>gods</strike> guidance.</div>Eleonora Rosatihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.com1