IPPT20111124, CJEU, Medeva v Patent Office

Print this page 17-12-2011

PATENT LAW

 

No SPC relating to active ingredients which are not specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent.
• The answer to the first five questions is, therefore, that Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as precluding the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a SPC relating to active ingredients which are not specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on in support of the SPC application.

 

IPPT20111020, CJEU, Greenstar v Kanzi

Print this page 12-12-2011

PLANT VARIETY RIGHTS

 

IPPT20111018, CJEU, Realchemie v Bayer

Print this page 10-12-2011

LITIGATION – PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

 

BRUSSELS REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE

 

IPPT20111013, CJEU, Airfield & Canal Digitaal v Sabam

Print this page 10-12-2011

COPYRIGHT

 

IPPT20110922, CJEU, Interflora v Marks & Spencer

Print this page 03-12-2011

TRADEMARK LAW

 

Essential function of indicating origin and other functions
• Admittedly, a trade mark is always supposed to fulfil its function of indicating origin, whereas it performs its other functions only in so far as its proprietor uses it to that end, in particular for the purposes of advertising or investment.

 

IPPT20111018, CJEU, Brustle v Greenpeace

Print this page 03-12-2011

PATENT LAW

 

“Human embryo": autonomous concept of EU law
• Although the text of the Directive does not define human embryo, nor does it contain any reference to national laws as regards the meaning to be applied to those terms. It therefore follows that it must be regarded, for the purposes of application of the Directive, as designating an autonomous concept of European Union law which must be interpreted in a uniform manner throughout the territory of the Union.

 

IPPT20111004, CJEU, Premier League

Print this page 26-11-2011

CONDITIONAL ACCES DIRECTIVE

 

“illicit device” does not cover foreign decoding devices which have been falsely obtained
• that ‘illicit device’ within the meaning of Article 2(e) of the Conditional Access Directive must be in-terpreted as not covering foreign decoding devices, foreign decoding devices procured or enabled by the provision of a false name and address or foreign decoding devices which have been used in breach of a contractual limitation permitting their use only for private purposes.

 

IPPT20110922, CJEU, Budvar v Anheuser-Busch

Print this page 25-11-2011

TRADEMARK LAW

 

Acquiescence: required that proprietor was in a position to oppose use
•  that acquiescence, within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 89/104, is a concept of European Union law and that the proprietor of an earlier trade mark cannot be held to have acquiesced in the long and wellestablished honest use, of which he has long been aware, by a third party of a later trade mark identical with that of the proprietor if that proprietor was not in any position to oppose that use.

 

Pages