Intellectual Property Law

Operators of a mobile application were found to infringe copyrights in television broadcasts by uploading clips of broadcasts of cricket matches

England And Wales Cricket Board Ltd & Anor v Tixdaq Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch) (18 March 2016)

The Claimants contended that the Defendants had infringed their copyrights under Article 2(d) and (e) of Directive 2001/29/EC (“the Information Society Directive”) by uploading a considerable number of clips of broadcasts of cricket matches to one of the Defendats’ mobile applications (“the App”). The Claimants were the owners of the copyrights in television broadcasts, and in films incorporated within such broadcasts, of most cricket matches played by the England men’s and women’s cricket teams in England and Wales. The Defendants denied infringement, relying primarily upon the defence of fair dealing for the purposes of reporting current events according to Article 5(3)(c) of the Information Society Directive and secondarily upon immunities for acting as a mere conduit and hosting under Articles 12 and 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC (“the E-Commerce Directive”).

(more…)

...

CARTIER and MONTBLANC were granted a website-blocking order so that their trade marks would not be infringed by marketing cheap copies

Cartier International Ltd & Anor v British Telecommunications Plc & Ors [2016] EWHC 339 (Ch) (23 February 2016)

In this case an injunction for blocking access to certain websites was sought according to Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC. The claimants owned registered trade marks which they used for the advertising and sale of their luxury goods. The defendants were the five main internet service providers (‘ISPs’) in the United Kingdom. It was alleged that certain websites were being used by their operators to infringe the claimants’ trade marks by marketing goods under those marks, typically cheap copies of the claimants’ goods.

(more…)

...

The London Taxi Company lost a case for trade mark infringement where the defendants succeeded in their allegations for invalidly registered trade marks

The London Taxi Corporation Ltd (t/a The London Taxi Company) v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 52 (Ch) (20 January 2016)

This case concerned trade mark infringement under Article 5(1)(b) of the European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95/EC/ Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009/EC and Article 5(2) of the Directive/ Article 9(1)(c) of the Regulation. The claimant’s complaint regarded the shape of the defendants’ taxi which it alleged had been substantially copied from the shape of its own model of London taxi. On the other hand, the defendants contended that trade marks of the claimant had been invalidly registered and in the alternative that the CTM (a three-dimensional trade mark) should be revoked for non-use.

(more…)

...

Spanish Supreme Court (TS) ruled compatibility between word marks “Don Simon works Max” and “Pascual works” despite the applicable coincidence

Tribunal Supremo (Supreme court) n°1909/2014 – 22 July 2015

 The Chamber examines the appeal brought by “J. Garcia Carrion, SA” against the judgment dismissing the appeal against the resolution rejecting the SPTO grant national brand ‘Don Simon works Max “(word), to cover products in Classes 29 and 32 of the International Classification, because of opposition from, among other, marked “Pascual works” (word) .Thus, after rejecting the alleged infringement of art. 67 LRJCA by the judgment under appeal, the High Court to understand that it gave a succinct but substantial enough to arguments made in response instance, if it considers, however, an infringement of Art. 6.1 b) of Law 17/2001, of Trademarks, and the applicable case law.

(more…)

...

The German Federal Court (BGH) on balancing of IP and copyright against the freedom of the press and freedom of expression

BGH, Urteil vom 14.10.2010, I ZR 191/08

The present case concerns the balancing of IP and Copyright against the freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The German Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) reversed the contested decision of the appeal court, because the latter decided that the acts of the respondent (namely the setting of a link which led to the access of an internetsite which was illegal) are not justified on the basis of freedom of expression and freedom of press reporting. According to the German Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) the abovementioned acts are covered by the freedom of expression, freedom of opinion and freedom of press reporting on the basis of Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and Article 11 para. 1 and 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU Charter).

(more…)

...