IPPT20100914, ECHR, Sanoma v The Netherlands
Protection journalistic sources: chilling effect: The present case concerns an order for the compulsory surrender of journalistic material which contained information capable of identifying journalistic sources. This suffices for the Court to find that this order constitutes, in itself, an interference with the …
moreIPPT20101209, EBA-EPO, Essentially Biological Process
Excluded essentially biological process: process containing sexually crossing. Excluded also if process of sexually crossing contains technical step enabling or assisting sexual crossing. Non-excluded; process containing step which by it-self introduces or modifies a trait in the genome of the plant produced. Nature …
moreIPPT1913, UKHL, Gillette Safety Razor v Anglo-American Trading
Gillette defence of applying the prior art: secure if he knows that that which he is doing differs from that which has been done of old only in non-patentable variations, such as the substitution of mechanical equivalents or changes of material, shape, or size. The defence that 'the alleged in-fringement was not novel …
moreIPPT20101222, CJEU, Bayerische Brauerbund v Bavaria
The date of the entry into force of the registration of the Protected Geographical Indication in accordance with the simplified procedure constitutes the reference date for the purposes of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 2081/92.
moreIPPT20101222, CJEU, Bezpecnostni softwarova asociace
Graphic user interface not a form of expression of a computer program: a graphic user interface is not a form of ex-pression of that program within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/250 and thus is not protected by copyright as a computer program under that directive. Such an interface can be protected by …
moreIPPT20101118, CJEU, Lidl v Vierzon Distribution
Comparative advertising: sufficient degree of interchangeability. Misleading comparison: (i) if it is found, that the decision to buy on the part of a significant number of consumers to whom the advertisement is addressed may be made in the mistaken belief that the selection of goods made by the advertiser is …
moreIPPT20101111, CJEU, Lovells v Bayer
SPC possible in case of a provisional market authorization for plant protection product: In the light of all those considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 1610/96 must be interpreted as not precluding a supplementary protection certificate from being issued for a …
moreIPPT20101109, CJEU, Mediaprint v Osterreich
Offer linked to purchase of newspaper not as such an unfiar commercial practice: to be verified whether it is contrary to requirements of professional diligence. In the light of the whole of the above, the answer to the first question must be that the Directive must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, …
moreIPPT20100713, BGH, Klammernahtger%C3%A4t
Enabling public availability: An invention is available to the public in an enabling manner when the information in the patent application discloses so much technical information to the person skilled in the art that he is able to successfully execute the invention. It is not necessary that as a minimum an embodiment …
moreIPPT20100628, USSC, Bilski v Kappos
IPPT20101021, CJEU, Padawan v SGAE
Link necessary between the levy to finance fair compensation and the deemed use of digital reproduction equipment. Fair compensation - damages: Based on harm caused to authors by the introduction of the private copying exception
moreIPPT20100909, CJEU, OHIM v BORCO
Distinctive character: Whether a sign is capable of distinguishing as a trademark has to be assessed in the context of an examination, based on facts. It is not open to OHIM, without relevant justification, to rely on conjecture or mere doubts. OHIM is required to examine, of its own motion, the relevant facts – no …
moreIPPT20100914, CJEU, Lego v OHIM
Sign consisting ‘exclusively’ of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result: condition is fulfilled when all the essential characteristics of a shape perform a technical function, the presence of nonessential characteristics with no technical function being irrelevant in that context. Shape …
moreIPPT20100902, CJEU, Calvin Klein v OHIM
No similarity because of different overall impression of mark "Creaciones Kennya". Conduct of applicant not relevant in case of opposition ex article 8 TM Reg. Where there is no similarity the reputation or goodwill of older mark is irrelevant. Similarity required for taking unfair advantage of or being detrimental …
moreIPPT20100902, CJEU, Kirin Amgen v Lietuvos Respublikos
Transitional law Supplementary Protection Certificate: No SPC available for products for which a Community authorisation to place that product on the market as a medicinal product was obtained more than six months before the accession of the Republic of Lithuania acceded to the European Union, but for which product …
moreAgency competent to require proof that an earlier mark has been renewed, but proof that an earlier mark has been renewed won’t be given spontaneously
Trade Mark Law - Litigation - Agency competent to require proof that an earlier mark has been renewed, but proof that an earlier mark has been renewed won’t be given spontaneously. New plea which extends the subject-matter of the dispute cannot be introduced in appeal
moreIPPT20100708, CJEU, Sjöberg & Gerdin
Stricter penalties for promoting foreign gambling precluded: that Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State subjecting gambling to a system of exclusive rights, according to which the promotion of gambling organised in another Member State is subject to stricter penalties than the …
moreIPPT20100708, CJEU, Portakabin v Primakabin
Use of key word infringing in case of adverse effect on the function of indicating origin. Use prohibited by article 5 will generally not be in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. Exhaustion: Use of mark permitted unless there is a legitimate reason.
moreIPPT20100706, CJEU, Monsanto v Cefetra
Patent protection DNA-sequence limited to circumstances in which it performs the patented function: not conferring patent right protection in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, in which the patented product is contained in the soy meal, where it does not perform the function for which it …
moreIPPT20100624, CJEU, Barbara Becker
Assesment of conceptual similarity: the General Court erred in law in basing its assessment of the conceptual similarity of the marks on general considerations taken from the case-law without analysing all the relevant factors specific to the case, in disregard of the requirement of an overall assessment of the …
more
