Germany: Intellectual Property

In a major decision dated December 19, 2025 (R 2248/2019-G), the Grand Board of Appeal of the EUIPO ruled that the word mark “GEORGE ORWELL” cannot be registered as an EU trade mark (EUTM) for goods and services such as books, films, recorded media, and entertainment, cultural, and educational services. The decision provides important clarification on the registrability of famous persons’ names in cases where such names may be perceived by the relevant public as describing the content or subject matter of the goods and services concerned, rather than their commercial origin.

On April 14, 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a landmark ruling in Case C-590/23 (Pelham II), clarifying the scope of the “pastiche” exception under Article 5(3)(k)...

Am 14. April 2026 hat der Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union (EuGH) in der Rechtssache C‑590/23 (Pelham II) eine grundlegende Entscheidung erlassen und den Anwendungsbereich der Ausnahme für die...

Security for costs application against a claimant company established in Taiwan can be accepted as the facts provided in the case indicate that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan...

The European Commission has issued its first-ever informal approvals of two separate sustainability initiatives among rivals under its revised Informal Guidance Notice and provided guidance on how the companies...

In recent years, cross-border patent disputes have intensified, drawing an increasing number of Chinese companies into major global litigation. Among the available remedies, injunctions often exert...

The European Patent Office Board of Appeal examined whether a helicopter maintenance system using data clustering and mission-type modeling could be patented. The case centered on whether abstract statistical modeling methods applied to technical sensor data produce a credible technical effect sufficient to support inventive step under European patent law.

Following execution of the inspection, the court-appointed expert prepared a detailed written description of the findings, which was uploaded to the CMS by the Sub-Registry. This description constitutes the central documentary evidence from the inspection measure and triggers the disclosure procedure governed by Art. 60(8) UPCA, R. 198(1) and R. 199(2) RoP.

The Court dismissed Claimant’s request for the production of documents under R. 190 RoP as Claimant failed to identify which facts it seeks to prove, did not identify by which means of evidence and did not explain for what purpose, i.e. the necessity of such evidence.

Market data from providers requiring confidentiality qualifies as confidential information under R. 262.2, R. 262A.1 RoP and Art. 58 UPCA, extending beyond trade secrets per Art. 39(2) TRIPS

Germany's Federal Cabinet has approved a draft bill modernizing the country's product liability framework for the first time since 1989, expanding liability to cover software and AI systems while introducing new evidentiary rules that shift the burden of proof toward manufacturers. The reform extends potential liability to a broader range of economic operators, including online marketplace providers and fulfillment service providers, while establishing extensive disclosure obligations for defendants in prod

Confidentiality orders are not limited to trade secrets, they cover any information requiring confidentiality, balanced against the parties’ competing interests