IPPT20101118, CJEU, Lidl v Vierzon Distribution

Print this page 24-11-2010

ADVERTISING LAW

 

Comparative advertising: sufficient degree of interchangeability
• the fact alone that food products differ in terms of the extent to which consumers would like to eat them and the pleasure to be derived from consuming them, according to the conditions and place of production, their ingredients and who produced them, cannot preclude the possibility that the comparison of such products may meet the requirement [..] that the products compared display a sufficient degree of interchangeability.

 

IPPT20101111, CJEU, Lovells v Bayer

Print this page 13-11-2010

SUPPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CERTIFICATE –
PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS


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 plant protection product in respect of which a valid MA has been granted pursuant to Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414.

IPPT20101109, CJEU, Mediaprint v Osterreich

Print this page 12-11-2010

UNFAIR COMMERCIAL PRACTICES

 

Promotional campaigns constitute commercial practices
• Promotional campaigns, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which enable consumers to take part free of charge in a lottery subject to their purchasing a certain quantity of goods or services, clearly form part of an operator’s commercial strategy and relate directly to the promotion thereof and its sales development.

 

IPPT20100713, BGH, Klammernahtger%C3%A4t

Print this page 09-11-2010

PATENT LAW

 

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 that can be used as such is directly and unambiguously disclosed

 

IPPT20100628, USSC, Bilski v Kappos

Print this page 01-11-2010

PATENT LAW

 

Three exceptions to broad principles of patentability Section 101
• This Court’s precedents provide three specific exceptions to §101’s broad principles: “laws of na-ture, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.” 

IPPT20100909, CJEU, OHIM v BORCO

Print this page 23-09-2010

TRADEMARK LAW

 

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 reversal of burden of proof


IPPT20100909, CJEU, OHIM v BORCO

IPPT20100902, CJEU, Calvin Klein v OHIM

Print this page 20-09-2010

TRADEMARK

 

Conduct of applicant not relevant in case of opposi-tion ex article 8 TM Reg
• That […] the General Court’s analysis is not vi-tiated by an error of law due to the fact that it failed to take account of alleged wrongful conduct on the part of the trade mark applicant.

 

IPPT20100902, CJEU, Kirin Amgen v Lietuvos Respublikos

Print this page 14-09-2010

PATENT LAW – SUPLLEMENTARY PROTECTION CERTIFICATE

 

Transitional law SPC
• 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 did not obtain a marketing authorisation in Lithuania

 

Pages