Bringing you monthly news of key developments in intellectual property law
TRADE MARKS
American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates, Joined Cases C-202/08 P and C-208/08 P, 16 July 2009
The ECJ has held that the CFI was wrong to deny protection to the Canadian national emblem of a maple leaf against registration of the figurative mark for services. The ECJ found that Article 6 of the Paris Convention applied to service marks as well as trade marks and therefore OHIM had been entitled to refuse registration of the applicant's mark in relation to the services in class 40 for the same reason that it had refused registration for the goods in classes 18 and 25. This shows the courts giving a purposive interpretation of the legislations, that trade marks and service marks are intended to be treated in the same way, rather than a strict literal interpretation.
For the full text of the decision, click here.
Nokia Corporation v Revenue & Customs [2009] EWHC 1903 (Ch), 27 July 2009
Nokia applied for a judicial review of Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs' ("HMRC") decision not to continue to detain or suspend the release of a shipment of mobile phones and accessories, which Nokia believed to be counterfeit. Its application has been refused.
For the full text of our Law-Now update on this, click here.
(1) Whirlpool Corporation (2) Whirlpool Properties Inc. (3) KitchenAid Europa Inc. v Kenwood Limited [2009] EWCA Civ 753, 23 July 2009
The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's decision that there was no infringement under Article 9(1)(c) of the CTM Regulation (40/94/EEC, now replaced by 2009/207/EC) as the "kMix" mixer, although similar to the Claimants' Community trade mark ("CTM"), was not taking unfair advantage of or causing detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the CTM.
For the full text of the decision, click here.
PATENTS
Generics (UK) Limited v Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd and another [2009] EWCA Civ 646, 2 July 2009
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from the High Court's decision that both a patent on Levofloxacin (an anti microbial pharmaceutical drug) and the supplementary protection certificate (SPC) based on that patent were valid. The SPC had been validly granted because Levofloxacin was a new product for the purposes of the SPC Regulation, which was sufficiently clear and therefore there was no need to refer questions to the ECJ.
For the full text of the decision, click here.
COPYRIGHT
Fisher (Original Appellant and cross-respondent) v Brooker and others (Original Respondent and cross-appellant) [2009] UKHL 41, 30 July 2009
The House of Lords has overturned the Court of Appeal's ruling of April 2008 that prevented the former organist of the band Procol Harum, Matthew Fisher, from obtaining a 40% share in any future royalties from musical copyright in the band's 1967 hit single "A Whiter Shade of Pale", 38 years after the record was first released.
For the full text of our Law-Now update on this, click here .
Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades
Forening,
Case C5/08, 16 July 2009
The ECJ has held that a data capture process used by a media monitoring business, by which 11-word extracts from newspaper articles were stored and printed out, amounted to reproduction within Article 2 of the Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC), provided that the elements reproduced were the expression of the intellectual creation of their author. However they left this element for the national Court to decide.
The ECJ also found that the act of printing out the 11-word extracts was not transient in nature, so that it could not come within the exemption from the reproduction right provided for in Article 5(1) of the Directive, which permits temporary acts of reproduction that meet certain conditions.
For the full text of the decision, click here.
This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq
Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.
The original publication date for this article was 21/08/2009.