WIPO annual report on IP activities for 2015

WIPO published its annual statistic regarding intellectual property activity for 2015.

According to the data the applications for patents rose with 7,8% in 2015 compare with 2014. The top 3 countries with the highest patent application rate are China, Indonesia and Russia. There was 2,9 million new applications worldwide in 2015 and 1,2 million registrations.

As for trademark applications there is an increase of 15,3% for 2015. The most active countries are Japan, Italy and China.

In the case of industrial design applications there is a rise of 2,3% globally, where the most active countries are Iran, China and US.

More information can be found here.

Advertisements

Fortune v Fortune Hotels- a General court decision

The General court of the EU ruled in case T-579/15, For Tune versus EUIPO. In this case For Tune  applied for the following EU trademark:

index

The mark was filed for the following goods:

– Class 35: ‘Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions’ and all the services of the alphabetical list in this class;

– Class 41: ‘Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities’ and all the services of the alphabetical list in this class;

Against this application was filed an opposition by German company based on an earlier ‘FORTUNE-HOTELS’ mark for the same classes.

According to the applicant, there isn’t any similarity between both signs taking into account the fact that the later mark consists of two elements FOR and TUNE distinguished by the red color.

What the General court and EUIPO considered, however, was that both marks are phonetically, visual and conceptional similar due to the shared element FORTUNE, which meaning is known in Germany. The color used in the later mark and the word Hotels in the earlier mark weren’t enough to make the necessary difference between the signs.

Source: Marques Class 46.

Nero coffee or not – a General court’s decision

The General Court ruled in cases T-37/10 and T-29/16 where an Italian company Caffe Nero Group ltd tried to register the following EU trademark in Class 30 ‘tea, coffee, cocoa; biscuits; cookies; bread, pastry and confectionery, chocolate bars, chocolate covered coffee beans, etc’ and related retails services in Class 35:

image-asp

The EUIPO refused to register this mark on absolute grounds, the consumer in Italy can perceive this expression as descriptive, namely that the coffee is without any additions such as sugar, milk or so on.

The decision was appealed by the company with the argument that nobody in Italy uses this term for such kind of coffee in practice.

According to the court, however, even in case that this is not typical expression for ordering such drink, it clearly evokes a direct meaning in consumer mind about the goods characteristics.

Moreover, for some of the goods such as ‘tea, cocoa, coffee substitutes; herb tea; tea beverages; cocoa and cocoa-based preparations; cocoa beverages; preparations and mixes for making the aforesaid goods; powdered chocolate’, the consumers can be mislead to think that they content coffee.

Source: Marques Class 46.

 

Copyright and out-of-print books – an European court’s decision

european-union-flagThe European court ruled in case C‑301/15, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France), made by decision of 6 May 2015, received at the Court on 19 June 2015, in the proceedings Marc Soulier, Sara Doke v Premier ministre, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, intervening parties: Société française des intérêts des auteurs de l’écrit (SOFIA), Joëlle Wintrebert and Others.

The case concerns the following:

Within the meaning of the Intellectual Property Code, an ‘out-of-print book’ means a book published in France before 1 January 2001 which is no longer commercially distributed by a publisher and is not currently published in print or in digital form. Articles L. 134-1 to L. 134-9 of that code established a legal framework intended to make those books accessible once again by organising their commercial exploitation in digital form. The detailed rules for the application of those provisions were laid down by Decree No 2013-182.

By application registered on 2 May 2013, Mr Soulier and Ms Doke, who are both authors of literary works, requested the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) to annul Decree No 2013-182.

In support of their claim, they submit, in particular, that Articles L. 134‑1 to L. 134-9 of the Intellectual Property Code establish an exception or a limitation to the exclusive reproduction right laid down in Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29 and that that exception or limitation is not included among those listed exhaustively in Article 5 thereof.

The Syndicat des écrivains de langue française (SELF), the Autour des auteurs association and 35 natural persons subsequently intervened in the proceedings in support of the claim brought by Mr Soulier and Ms Doke.

In their respective defences, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Culture and Communication both contested that the claim should be dismissed.

SOFIA subsequently intervened in the proceedings, also seeking to have those claims dismissed. SOFIA presents itself as a society made up equally of authors and publishers, mandated to manage the right to authorise the reproduction and representation of out-of-print books in digital form, the public lending right and the remuneration for digital private copying in the field of writing.

After dismissing all the pleas of Mr Soulier and Ms Doke that rested on legal bases other than Articles 2 and 5 of Directive 2001/29, the referring court started the examination of the pleas relating to those articles by holding, immediately, that the treatment of that aspect of the case depends on the interpretation to be given of those articles.

In those circumstances, the Conseil d’État (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Do [Articles 2 and 5] of Directive 2001/29 preclude legislation, such as that [established in Articles L. 134-1 to L. 134-9 of the Intellectual Property Code], that gives approved collecting societies the right to authorise the reproduction and the representation in digital form of “out-of-print books”, while allowing the authors of those books, or their successors in title, to oppose or put an end to that practice, on the conditions that it lays down?’

The Court’s decision:

Article 2(a) and Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that gives an approved collecting society the right to authorise the reproduction and communication to the public in digital form of ‘out-of-print’ books, namely, books published in France before 1 January 2001 which are no longer commercially distributed by a publisher and are not currently published in print or in digital form, while allowing the authors of those books, or their successors in title, to oppose or put an end to that practice, on the conditions that that legislation lays down.

Brief IP news

briefs_1131.Have U.S. Patent Laws Become Unconstitutional? For more information here.

2.Protecting well-known trademarks in the European Union. For more information here.

3.Innovation and survival: lessons from the smartphone wars. For more information here.

Information from Intellectual Property Center at the UNWE. More information can be found here