Blog Post
Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation – clarity at last?
Since we blogged on the CJEU's judgment in Teva v Gilead in July, Arnold J in the English High Court has decided that Gilead's SPC for the combination of Tenofovir Disoproxil (TD) and Emtricitabine does not comply with Article 3(a) and must be revoked.
Blog Post
No fairy tale ending for souvenir sellers at the inspiration for Disneyland castle
Sellers of unauthorised branded souvenirs, a ubiquitous part of tourist sites worldwide, may find their activities restricted following a recent CJEU decision concerning Neuschwanstein Castle in Germany, as we discuss briefly in this blog.
Blog Post
Birkenstock loses its footing in CJEU appeal
In a recent decision, the CJEU rejected an appeal from the German casual footwear manufacturer, Birkenstock in respect of its attempt to register a figurative trade mark for a pattern of waved, crossing lines - the pattern used on the soles of Birkenstock footwear.
Blog Post
School Taught a Lesson on Communicating Copyright Works
In the recent case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Renckhoff (C-161/17), the CJEU handed down one of its last judgments before breaking for summer, on copyright infringement. The Court held that posting a photograph on a website amounted to a communication to the public. This was the case even where the photograph had been previously published on another website with the consent of the copyright owner.
Blog Post
Further guidance from the CJEU on SPCs for combination products
In Teva v Gilead (C-121/17), the CJEU has given its answer to the question of when a drug composed of several active ingredients will be considered to be ‘protected by a basic patent in force’ under Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (the SPC Regulation).
Blog Post
Shot down: Jägermeister loses CJEU appeal for design application
The Court of Justice of the European Union has dismissed Jägermeister's appeal against the EUIPO's decision that a filing date could not be attributed to its design applications.
Blog Post
It's a shoe-in for Louboutin following CJEU ruling
The CJEU has issued its decision in the Louboutin red sole case (C-163/16), ruling that a mark consisting of a colour applied to the sole of a shoe is NOT covered by the prohibition of the registration of shapes, since the mark does not consist "exclusively of a shape".
Blog Post
The Advocate General's clarification of the 'Specific Mechanism' in Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Orifarm
Advocate General Tanchev recently gave his opinion in Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Orifarm concerning parallel imports of etanercept (a drug used for treating arthritis) from new member states into Germany. The Regional Court in Düsseldorf referred questions to the CJEU seeking guidance on the scope of the so-called 'specific mechanism' exception.
Blog Post
Louboutin: the next step in the red sole saga
This latest development in the red sole saga concerns Louboutin's 2010 Benelux registration for "the colour red (Pantone 18 1663TP) applied to the sole of a shoe as shown (the contour of the shoe is not part of the trade mark but is intended to show the positioning of the mark)". This is the AG's second Opinion on the matter following the re-opening of oral proceedings for interested parties.
Blog Post
A new wave of trade mark protection: the "aura" of a luxury brand
On 6 December 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH. The case involved Coty Germany, a luxury cosmetics supplier, which in order to preserve its brand, distributed certain products through a selected network of distributors that were authorised to do so (the "Selected Distribution System"). Parfümerie was an authorised distributor of the Coty products, and in dispute was a clause in the contract between the parties which prohibited Parfümerie distributing Coty goods through Amazon Germany.