New rules for handling appeals before the EU Court of Justice

flag-2608475_960_720.jpgPress release by the European Council:

In order to improve the functioning of the Court of Justice of the EU, which has seen a huge increase in the number of cases brought before it, the Council today adopted a new filtering mechanism for appeals by changing the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU. In order to implement the change in practice, the Council also approved a set of amendments to the Court’s Rules of Procedure.

“The improved rules will facilitate the work of the Court of Justice of the EU by introducing a filtering mechanism for identifying appeals that merit examination, thus allowing the court to concentrate on its core business. The Court of Justice is overburdened and must prioritise. This decision will increase efficiency and enhance legal protection in the EU.”

      George Ciamba, Romanian Minister Delegate for European Affairs

The regulation agreed today will introduce a new filtering mechanism for appeals relating to decisions by certain EU agencies and offices. Appeals brought in cases which have already been considered twice, first by an independent board of appeal, then by the General Court, will not be allowed to proceed before the Court of Justice unless it is demonstrated that they raise an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law. Statistics show that many such appeals, in fact, end up being dismissed on the grounds that they are either patently unfounded or manifestly inadmissible.

Specifically, the new rules will apply to appeal procedures emanating from one of the following EU agencies and offices:

the European Union Intellectual Property Office;
the Community Plant Variety Office;
the European Chemicals Agency; and
the European Union Aviation Safety Agency.
There has been a large increase over the past few years in the number of cases brought before the Court of Justice. The new procedure will reduce the workload of the court, allowing it to concentrate on cases that require its full attention.

The regulation adopted today is based on a proposal from the Court of Justice and has been agreed in negotiations between the Court of Justice, the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council. The Council today also approved an accompanying set of amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice setting out the new system for handling appeals in detail.

For more information here.

Advertisements

Video explaining how to protect trademarks in Bulgaria

The Bulgarian Patent Office started a new initiative for brief video tutorials regarding registration of different intellectual property objects.

The video below gives information on how you can register trademarks in Bulgaria. Although this video is on Bulgarian it has subtitles in English.

Partial success for Cadbury over color trademarks dispute in the UK

night-photograph-starry-sky-night-sky-star-957040.jpegThe UKIPO has ruled in oppositions against the following trademark applications all for class 30, filed by Cadbury:

GB50000000003019362.jpg– № 3019361, with the following description: The colour purple (Pantone 2685C), as shown on the form of application, applied to the packaging of goods.

GB50000000003019362.jpg– № 3019362, with the following description: The colour purple (Pantone 2685C), as shown on the form of application, applied to the whole visible surface of the packaging of the goods.

GB50000000003019362.jpg– № 3025822, with the following description: The colour purple (Pantone 2685C), shown on the form of application.

Against these applications Nestle filed oppositions with the following arguments:

  • The reference in the description to a Pantone number is a necessary but not
    sufficient condition for the Application to comply with Section 1(1);
  • The reference in the description to something “being shown on the form of
    application” does not comply with the requirement of being self-contained,
    intelligible and/or accessible. The application form does not form part of the
    public register and those consulting the public register are unable to ascertain
    from that the nature of the material referred to in the description.
  • The reference in the description to something being “applied to the packaging
    of the goods” imports a reference to a means of configuration or
    representation which is not shown on the register and which may comprise a
    potentially limitless number of signs/means of representation.
  • The reference in the description to “the whole visible surface” is inherently
    ambiguous because the public and competitors will assume – and the
    applicant intends – that less than the whole visible surface is in fact meant by
    the words “whole visible surface” since products of this kind must of necessity
    bear words, logos and other elements of different colours on the surface of
    the packaging.

The UKIPO agreed that in the case of trademarks 3019361 and 3025822 their descriptions create ambiguity regarding what exactly these signs represent.

Regarding trademark 3019362, however, the UKIPO considered that the above-mentioned conclusion is not relevant because the trademark’s description gives an idea of what exactly trademark dimensions are.

Source: WIPR.

Tests, well-known trademarks and a European Court decision

pexels-photo-951233.jpegThe European Court has ruled in case C‑690/17 ÖKO-Test Verlag GmbH v Dr. Rudolf Liebe Nachf. GmbH & Co. KG. This case concerns the following:

ÖKO-Test Verlag is the owner of the following German and EU trademark for printed works and testing and information and consultation services.

download.png

ÖKO-Test Verlag chooses different goods from the market and makes tests on them without consent from the relevant producers. After that, the results are published in the magazine issued by ÖKO-Test.

Sometimes these producers are invited to use the results from these tests for marketing purposes in which case they are allowed ÖKO-Test trademark on products’ packages under a license.

Dr. Liebe produces toothpaste. In 2005 this company signed a license agreement to use ÖKO-Test for its product which was subject to a test receiving a very good assessment.

In 2014, however, ÖKO-Test Verlag found that Dr. Liebe was still been using its trademark although that wasn’t allowed under the license.

Dr. Liebe disagreed and because of which a lawsuit followed.  The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf  raised the following questions to the European court:

‘(1) Is there an unlawful use within the meaning of Article 9 (1), second sentence, (b) of [Regulation No 207/2009] or the second sentence of Article 5 (1) (a) 95] where:

  • the individual mark is affixed to a product for which the individual mark is not registered,
  • in the course of trade, the affixing of an individual mark by a third party is perceived as a “test mark”, that is to say, the product is manufactured and marketed by a third party not under the control of the proprietor of the trademark, but the holder of the mark has tested this product for certain qualities and based on this it has indicated in the test mark a certain result such as assessment,
  • and the individual mark is registered in particular for “informing and consulting consumers on the choice of goods and services, in particular through the use of test and research results and quality assessments”?

2. If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the negative:

  • Is there an unlawful use within the meaning of Article 9 (1) (c) of [Regulation No 207/2009] and of Article 5 (2) of [Directive 2008/95] if:
  • The individual mark is only known as the test mark described in point 1, and
  • the individual mark is used by a third person as a test mark? “

The Court’s decision:

1. Article 9 (1) (a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Article 5 (1) of Directive 2008/95 / EC must be interpreted as not authorizing the proprietor of an individual mark consisting of a test mark to opposes the affixing by a third party of a sign identical or similar to that mark on goods which are neither identical nor similar to the goods or services for which the mark in question is registered.

2. Article 9 (1) (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 5 (2) of Directive 2008/95 are to be interpreted as authorizing the proprietor of a mark consisting of a test mark, an individual mark with reputation to oppose the affixing by a third party of a sign identical with, or similar to, that mark to goods which are neither identical nor similar to those for which the mark in question is registered, provided that it is established that, by affixing this sign to the goods the third party takes unfair advantage of distinctive character or reputation of the same mark or damages the trademark without clear legal grounds for this. 

(Unofficial translation)

Formula E crashed in a case before the European Court of Justice

race-track-flag-2035566_960_720.jpgThe European Court has ruled in case C‑282/18 – The Green Effort Limited v Fédération internationale de l’automobile (FIA). Even though the case is simple, it clearly shows why every trademark owner has to stick to the deadlines given by the EUIPO.

The Case concerns the following:

The Green Effort acquired rights over the word mark Formula E, the application for registration of which was filed on 17 November 2010.

The goods and services in respect of which registration was sought are:

–        Class 25: ‘Clothing’;

–        Class 38: ‘Broadcasting by radio, television and satellite’;

–        Class 41: ‘Organization of sporting events’.

The EU trademark application was published on 3 December 2010 and the trade mark applied for was registered on 14 March 2011.

On 15 March 2016, Fédération internationale de l’automobile (FIA) filed an application for revocation of the contested mark for all the goods and services, pursuant to Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, on the ground that it had not been put to genuine use within a continuous period of five years.

On 21 March 2016, the Cancellation Division of EUIPO invited The Green Effort to submit, by 21 June 2016, proof of genuine use of the contested mark. Since that proof was submitted on 22 June 2016, in disregard of the time limit prescribed, it was not taken into account.

On 27 July 2016, The Green Effort filed an application for restitutio in integrum with the Cancellation Division of EUIPO in order have its rights to submit that proof re-established.

By decision of 8 September 2016, the Cancellation Division rejected the application and revoked the contested mark in its entirety.

On 5 October 2016, the applicant filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO against the decision of the Cancellation Division.

By the contested decision, the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO (‘the Board of Appeal’) dismissed the appeal.

In support of its decision, the Board of Appeal considered that neither the proprietor of the contested mark nor its representative showed that they had actually taken the utmost care to observe the time limit prescribed for submitting the documents proving genuine use of the contested mark. It took the view that, while there is evidence in the file of repeated attempts to send electronic communications and fax communications from The Green Effort to EUIPO, with respect to Spanish local time all communications were received on 22 June 2016, that is to say after the time limit prescribed had expired, since the explanations provided in that regard could not be regarded as ‘exceptional’.

Therefore, the Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division to reject the application for restitutio in integrum, and, with regard to the application for revocation of the contested mark, it considered that, in the absence of any proof of genuine use in the European Union during the relevant period or of any indications of proper reasons for non-use, the rights acquired by The Green Effort had to be revoked in their entirety and deemed not to have had any effect as from 15 March 2016.

The Court dismissed the appeal by The Green Effort Limited considering that the EUIPO’s position on the matter is correct. The arguments are:

As set out in Article 4(4) of that decision, without prejudice to accurately establishing the date of notification, notification will be deemed to have taken place on the fifth calendar day following the day on which EUIPO placed the document in the user’s inbox.

That interpretation meets the requirements stemming from the principle of legal certainty by preventing a decision of the Board of Appeal from being called into question indefinitely, given that, if no access to the document concerned is requested after it has been placed in the recipient’s inbox, the notification is deemed to have taken place on the fifth calendar day after being so placed.

Therefore, since it is common ground that the representative of The Green Effort requested access to the contested decision on 19 September 2017, that he downloaded it and became aware of it on that same day, the General Court did not err in law in deciding that the time limit for bringing an action against the contested decision expired on 29 November 2017, that decision having been notified on 19 September 2017. Therefore, the ground of appeal alleging that the starting point of the time limit prescribed for bringing an action was wrongly determined must be rejected as unfounded.

Irish whiskey is now protected EU Geographical indication

drink-3108436_960_720.jpgThe European Commission confirmed the Irish whiskey status as a protected European Geographical indication. The scope of protection covers different variations of this whiskey such as malt Irish whiskey, pot still Irish whiskey, grain Irish whiskey, and blended Irish whiskey.

Irish whiskey has been known since the 6th Century. In the 19 Century, its production rose significantly and in the 20 Century, it became worldwide known.

In the future, this whiskey will be produced only on the territory of Irland under strict requirements and approved methods.

This is a strategic step for the Irish Whiskey Association because it gives an opportunity for legal protection against unfair competition and infringements. What’s more, the protection of this Geographical indication will be included in future trade negotiations between The EU and third parties which by itself is crucial for the Association taking into account its global sells.

Breaking News – The EU Council approves DSM Directive

The EU Council has approved the DSM Directive. You can see how every Member State voted below:

D4LjnrFXkAAgJe0.jpg

The next step is the transposition of this Directive into the national legislation of every EU Member State, which has to be done within 24 months.

Source: IP Kat.