Posts Tagged ‘Intellectual Property’

The internet, but not as we know it

Friday, January 13th, 2012

Yesterday ICAAN opened its doors to applications for generic top level domains (gTLDs). Applicants will be able to apply for specific words or letters as an alternative to the recognised top level suffixes of .com, .net and .org. Examples of early applications are .london and .pepsi (i.e. http://mybrand or customerservice@mybrand).

The changes have led to widespread concern, with companies fearing reputational damage if their key brands and trade marks fall into the wrong hands. However, with a non-refundable “evaluation fee” of $185,000 and careful policing promised by the registries, there should be a significant barrier in the way of most Internet fraudsters.

The industry is estimating we will see around 1,500 initial applications for gTLDs. In our opinion, gTLDs represent a new frontier on the Internet and, in turn, a great opportunity for companies to stake their claim with key trade marks or creative new branding.

Posted by Oliver Laing, who specialises in intellectual property agreements, anti counterfeiting and disputes relating to patents, copyright, trade marks, designs, as well as domain name disputes and reputation management.

Oliver Laing

Oliver Laing
0115 908 4854
olaing@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 9.0/10 (2 votes cast)

Richard Hooper calls for evidence on Digital Copyright Exchange

Monday, January 9th, 2012

Richard Hooper, appointed by the government to conduct a study of the Digital Copyright Exchange (DCE) proposed in the Hargreaves Report on intellectual property rights, has called for evidence from interested parties . Submissions must be made by Friday 10 February.

The DCE is proposed as a solution to the problem of the collapsing value of creative content – which can be electronically replicated and shared – by creating a cheap and efficient online copyright licensing system. The Government hopes that this will harness the growth potential of creative industries and make the UK a leader in digital copyright services.

However, there was a note of uncertainty from Baroness Wilcox, the intellectual property minister, who indicated that it was still to be determined if the DCE was a “workable proposition.” Updating copyright law for the digital age will be complicated and, whatever the government’s decision, Hargreaves’ proposed completion date of the end of 2012 looks increasingly ambitious.

Dave Drew

Dave Drew
0115 976 6226
ddrew@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 7.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Nominet appeal panel polishes off Furniture Village’s complaint

Monday, January 9th, 2012

Furnitureland went into administration in 2005. Its trade marks and the goodwill associated with them were sold to Furniture Village. In 2009, furnitureland.co.uk ltd was incorporated and obtained the domain furnitureland.co.uk.

Furniture Village brought a Nominet complaint about furnitureland.co.uk. The respondent claimed that, although he knew about Furnitureland, he thought they had stopped trading, and so his registration of the domain name was in good faith.

Both the first instance Expert and Appeal Panel agreed, so the respondent gets to keep the domain furnitureland.co.uk, which it is using as a click through website.

The case shows that the Nominet DRS is not suitable unless the complainant can clearly show the registrant knew of the complainant’s rights.

Faced with similar facts, brand owners should consider a passing off or trade mark action, which may have a better chance of succeeding.

It is also worth noting that the panel maintained the DRS’s reputation for speed by refusing to stay the appeal because of a pending trade mark revocation.

Posted by Giles Parsons, who specialises in intellectual property agreements and disputes relating to patents, copyright, trade marks, designs, as well as domain name disputes and reputation management.

Giles Parsons

Giles Parsons
0121 237 4557
gparsons@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 8.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Advocate General supports team Yahoo in fight over football fixture lists

Thursday, December 15th, 2011

Today, Advocate General Mengozzi delivered his opinion to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on some “short” and “simple” questions referred to the CJEU by the English Court of Appeal in the case of Football Dataco Ltd and Ors v Yahoo! UK Ltd.

The Opinion relates to the scope of copyright protection for databases. The Opinion states that a database, including the likes of football fixture lists and TV listings, can only be protected by copyright if it is an original intellectual creation of its author. Any creative effort in determining the elements of the database is a data creation activity and so does not count.

AG Mengozzi’s Opinion, if followed by the CJEU, will be a blow to the creators of sporting fixture lists and similar databases. No matter how much creative effort goes into the difficult task of creating a set of sporting fixtures, copyright in the database will only subsist if the presentation of the database is also in some way creative.

Posted by Mark Daniels, who specialises in intellectual property dispute resolution involving infringement and validity of patents, trade marks, designs and copyright, as well as reputation management and domain name disputes.

Mark Daniels

Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Counterfeit products flood UK market warns UK Border Agency

Friday, December 9th, 2011

The Government’s UK Border Agency has warned shoppers of a flood of counterfeit products coming into the UK in time for the festive season.
Counterfeit products such as toys, electronics and beauty products all pose a potential health risk due to the use of banned chemicals or unsafe electronics.

For the companies whose products are being counterfeited it poses a concern not only for their customers’ safety, but also for the damage these inferior quality and potentially dangerous products could do to their reputation.

While stopping all counterfeit goods entering the UK is impossible, a strong and structured approach can be taken. In particular, customs watches can be set up with the UK Border Agency who will seize infringing goods of which it becomes aware, preventing their access into the UK. Once confirmed as counterfeit, goods are then destroyed.

In our view failure to control the influx of counterfeit products can cause irreparable damage to a company’s reputation and, as we have all seen, can be the death of a premier brand.”

Posted by Oliver Laing, who specialises in intellectual property agreements, anti counterfeiting and disputes relating to patents, copyright, trade marks, designs, as well as domain name disputes and reputation management.

Oliver Laing

Oliver Laing
0115 908 4854
olaing@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Government Strategy to open up access to IP for SMEs

Friday, December 9th, 2011

A Strategy published yesterday and highlighted by the IPO’s press release sets out measures to help small and medium size businesses protect their IP rights.

The strategy picks up a number of proposals for the future (such as the creation of a register of IP advisors, online training tool, and provision of audits) and some that are already in place such as online patent service “Ipsum” which allows businesses to find patents and related documentation online.

All steps are welcomed if they result in SME’s developing and protecting IP. So often SMEs only become aware of IP rights and their protection as a result of an internal dispute or on the departure of a key developer. Lets hope these measures will allow SMEs to be sufficiently informed at an early stage to prevent unnecessary disputes from arising.

Posted by Richard Nicholas, who specialises in commercial, IT and outsourcing agreements, complex projects for private and public sector clients, collaboration, distribution & agency contracts, e-commerce and consumer law.

Richard Nicholas

Richard Nicholas
0121 237 3992
rnicholas@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Unprecedented IP envoy appointed to protect UK interests in China

Friday, December 9th, 2011

Following our recent blog on UK businesses’ anger at China’s apparent ‘flouting’ of Intellectual Property (IP) rights, the government’s appointment of the UK’s first ever IP Attaché has been announced.

Tom Duke will be based at the British Embassy in Beijing and will be responsible for providing UK companies trading in China with support and advice about the enforcement of IP rights.

In making the announcement, Baroness Wilcox (UK Minister for IP) commented on the opportunity that the Chinese market represents for UK businesses, stating that trade between the two nations was last year worth an estimated £42 million; she noted ‘we need an efficient global intellectual property system where businesses have the confidence to trade in growing markets’.

This appointment will be welcome news to UK companies such as Dyson who, we reported this week, are put off from dealing in China despite its rapid growth, due to the apparent lack of monitoring of domestic infringers of UK IP rights.

Laura Mackenzie

Laura Mackenzie
0121 237 3959
lmackenzie@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 9.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Dyson – China’s flouting of IP rights risks their expulsion from the WTO

Monday, December 5th, 2011

Sir James Dyson has warned that China’s reputation risks being tarnished in the eyes of foreign investors due to their approach to IP rights.

In advance of this week’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) symposium, which will be attended by trade representatives from China and the UK (including the UK Minister for IP- Baroness Wilcox), Dyson warned that China faces expulsion from the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the body that enforces global trade rules.

Dyson, a member of the prime minister’s business advisory group, suggests that China is creating an unlevel international playing field which prevents foreign companies enforcing their rights against Chinese infringers by maintaining a patent application process in which Chinese applications are passed in less than a year, compared to five years for foreign businesses.

China’s approach to IP right enforcement is likely to be of increasing interest to UK companies eager to protect their products, should the emerging market continue to pursue rapid economic growth without attempting to monitor domestic infringers.

Laura Mackenzie

Laura Mackenzie
0121 237 3959
lmackenzie@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 8.0/10 (1 vote cast)

The colour purple – the development of colours as trade mark

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

The UK’s Trade Mark registry has ruled that chocolate manufacturers Cadbury can continue to trade mark  a particular shade of purple used on its packaging, following a challenge by rival brand Nestle on the basis that Cadbury’s use of the purple colour was not distinctive enough to warrant protection.

Cadbury are likely to claim as a victory the ruling that they have built up enough distinctive character in their purple shade through their use of it on chocolate in bar and tablet form and eating and drinking chocolate products.

However, it is worth noting that the registry agreed with Nestle that this distinctive association did not extend to their chocolate cakes, chocolate assortments, and some confectionery chocolate, and therefore Cadbury’s attempt to register trade marks in these areas was refused. Nevertheless, many will regard this as a victory for Cadbury in its long-running battle with Nestle.

Laura Mackenzie

Laura Mackenzie
0121 237 3959
lmackenzie@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)

Chinese Telecoms Firms under US Congressional Investigation

Monday, November 21st, 2011

The Chinese phone manufacturer ZTE plans to focus on manufacturing smartphone in a bid to crack the US telecommunications market. ZTE will move from producing lower-end ‘feature phones’ – a hugely successful export to emerging economies like India – and concentrate on fourth generation smartphones.

This latest phase of ZTE’s phenomenal rise from its origins as a trader of accordions and low grade telephones, coincides with growing political tensions between the US and China. The US House intelligence committee recently launched an investigation into the security threat posed by the Chinese technology firms operating in the US market. ZTE and Huawei, another multi-national telecommunications firm, are both under scrutiny.

These developments highlight the sheer structural breadth of the Chinese economy, simultaneously industrialising from subsistence agriculture at one end to manufacturing cutting edge smart phones at the other. It also reveals US concern about losing its primacy in hi-tech innovation. For all the rhetoric about ‘threats to national security’, it is the threat to US business interests that really concern American lawmakers.

Dave Drew

Dave Drew
0115 976 6226
ddrew@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)

Vax clean up

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

Dyson has lost its appeal against the High Court’s decision that Vax’s Mach Zen vacuum cleaner does not infringe Dyson’s registered design for its DC02 vacuum cleaner.

The High Court had dismissed Dyson’s infringement claim on the basis that the Mach Zen produced a different overall impression on the informed user. Dyson appealed the decision but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal emphasising that the key legal issues was whether the Mach Zen did or did not produce on the informed user a different overall impression and, in this case, the Mach Zen did indeed produce a different overall impression with the court noting that there were in fact ‘substantial differences’.

This case is a reminder that even if you have broad registered design protection, the use by a third party of a similar design will not amount to infringement if that design produces a different overall impression on the informed user (a knowledgeable user of the product).

Posted by Sara McNeill, who specialises in non-contentious intellectual property matters, including licensing, franchise, collaboration and development arrangements and IP audits and strategy; experienced in drafting and advising on commercial agreements.

Sara McNeill

Sara McNeill
0121 237 3930
smcneill@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

The Informed User is Clarified as Pepsi’s Pogs Fail to Appeal

Thursday, October 27th, 2011

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has followed the Advocate General’s opinion by dismissing an appeal against the General Court’s ruling that Pepsi’s design registration for “pogs” was invalid.

The design was previously ruled invalid because it did not create a different overall impression on the informed user than an earlier Promer design. A key facet of Pepsi’s appeal was that the General Court had incorrectly defined the “informed user” and his level of attentiveness.

The ECJ disagreed with Pepsi and stated that informed user lies “somewhere between … the average consumer… who need not have any specific knowledge and who, as a rule, makes no direct comparison between the trade marks in conflict, and the sectoral expert, who is an expert with detailed technical expertise”.

Although this is a welcome clarification, this case concerned a very simple design, and it seems likely that the courts will continue to grapple with this concept in less straightforward design fields.

Posted by Ryan Harrison, who specialises in intellectual property agreements and disputes, licensing, commercial contracts, and commercial and intellectual property issues arising from M & As and disposals.

Ryan Harrison

Ryan Harrison
0121 237 3950
rharrison@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

The Patents County Court – living the dream!

Thursday, October 20th, 2011

The Patents County Court was revamped this time last year with its principle objective being to promote access to justice at proportionate cost for SMEs and other parties involved in lower value IP disputes.

The damages cap which is to be applied to claims in the Patents County Court has now been formally extended to all claims brought in that court (previously it applied only to patents and designs). A sensible move, ensuring that claims relating to all intellectual property rights are brought into line with the court’s objective. With the PCC having dealt with over 100 new cases in the last year, it is apparent that parties have the confidence to resolve their disputes using the reformed process in the court.

Posted by Mark Daniels, who specialises in intellectual property dispute resolution involving infringement and validity of patents, trade marks, designs and copyright, as well as reputation management and domain name disputes.

Mark Daniels

Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

How do you like them Apples?

Thursday, October 13th, 2011

A preliminary injunction has been granted in Australia as part of a global intellectual property rights battle between Apple and Samsung.

The two technology giants, both global leaders within the smartphone market, are now battling it out within the rapidly expanding market for personal tablets.

As of April 2011, Apple initiated lawsuits alleging patent infringement for the use of touch screen technology. The claims specifically concern the iPad and Galaxy Tab 10.1, with legal action spanning 10 different countries.

The most recent development concerns a decision taken today (13 October 2011) by Judge Bennett. The judge granted a temporary injunction on the sale of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 within Australia, prohibiting participation in the upcoming Christmas sales.

This is yet another victory for Apple, with similar rulings given in Germany and the Netherlands. Despite this, the conflict seems unlikely to die down, as Samsung has threatened injunctions to ban sales of the new iPhone 4S in France and Germany.

Posted by Oliver Laing, who specialises in intellectual property agreements and disputes relating to patents, copyright, trade marks, designs, as well as domain name disputes and reputation management.

Oliver Laing

Oliver Laing
0115 908 4854
olaing@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (3 votes cast)

Interflora and Marks & Spencer keyword battle

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has given its preliminary ruling on the the questions referred to it by MR Justice Arnold concerning the use of a competitor’s trade mark as a keyword.

The ECJ ruled (amongst other points):

  • a trade mark proprietor can prevent a competitor from using a keyword identical to their own trade mark to advertise goods or services identical to those covered by their trade mark where such use is liable to have an adverse effect on the functions of the trade mark: the ‘indicating origin’ function of a trade mark will be adversely affected if the advertising displayed as a result of the keyword does not enable an internet user to ascertain whether the goods or services advertised originate from the trade mark proprietor or a third party.
  • the proprietor of a trade mark with a reputation is entitled to prevent a competitor from advertising on the basis of a keyword corresponding to that trade mark where the competitor takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or reputation of the trade mark or where the advertising is detrimental to that distinctive character.

The first point is unsurprising – its what we’ve been seeing in the national court rulings. However, it will be interesting to see how broadly the second point is interpreted by the English courts.

Posted by Sara McNeill, who specialises in non-contentious intellectual property matters, including licensing, franchise, collaboration and development arrangements and IP audits and strategy; experienced in drafting and advising on commercial agreements.

Sara McNeill

Sara McNeill
0121 237 3930
smcneill@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 7.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Vince Cable announces support for intellectual property modernisation

Friday, August 5th, 2011

On 3 August, the Government announced its full support for the recommendations made in the Hargreaves Report on intellectual property and growth.

The Government revealed its goal to “have measures in place by the end of this Parliament” and will prepare more detailed proposals for consultation. The report’s recommendations include:

  • the creation of a digital copyright exchange which would assist the buying and selling of digital copyright licences and add up to £2.2 billion to the UK economy by 2020
  • allowing copying of data for private purposes or where it does not damage the underlying aims of copyright, which would enable private users to copy media from one format to another (e.g. copying iTunes tracks onto a CD)
  • adapting the patent and design frameworks to enable IP law to keep up to date with technology and business practices.

The Government’s response demonstrates a commitment to assist UK businesses in using intellectual property but it remains to be seen how, and whether, such assistance will be given.

Alex Kynoch

Alex Kynoch
0115 976 6528
akynoch@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Threatening reform?

Monday, July 25th, 2011

In its eleventh programme of reform, the Law Commission has announced it will consider reforming the laws relating to groundless threats.

Currently, groundless threats of trade mark, design or patent litigation can be causes of action themselves.

Sabre rattling should obviously be discouraged, particularly as just the threat of infringement can be enough to make customers defect to rightsholders to avoid the threat of litigation.

But businesses harmed by allegations of infringement are often reluctant to bring a claim for groundless threats, particularly as they could be ordered to provide security for the rightsholder’s costs. When claims for groundless threats are brought, the costs can be disproportionate to the damage done by a threat. And in practice, the threats provisions can cause costs to increase, because rather than encouraging a litigant to set out its case clearly (which could result in an early settlement), litigants may seek to artificially narrow their claim to avoid threats actions.

So whilst the rationale behind the threats provisions is admirable, in practice they do not function effectively. Part of the solution may be amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules to allow declarations that threats are unjustified to be brought cheaply and quickly.

Posted by Giles Parsons, who specialises in intellectual property agreements and disputes relating to patents, copyright, trade marks, designs, as well as domain name disputes and reputation management.

Giles Parsons

Giles Parsons
0121 237 4557
gparsons@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

High Court presses “pause” in dispute over TVCatchup

Monday, July 25th, 2011

The dispute between broadcasters ITV, Channel 4 and Five and online streaming company TV Catchup has been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

TVCatchup provides a quasi-live service, relaying free-to-air TV channels to UK members. ITV (etc) claimed that this infringed their copyright by “communicating to the public”, by electronic transmission, their films and broadcasts. TVCatchup argued that the relevant legislation had been amended improperly and was therefore invalid.

The judge provisionally found that the transmissions were “communicating to the public”, although he thought that they only reproduced a substantial part of ITV’s films, not of their broadcasts; also, for some reproductions TVCatchup may have a defence of “incidental” copying. However, he felt these issues needed clarification from the ECJ.

A final judgment may be years away allowing TVCatchup in the meantime to continue profiting from its services and must surely be a bitter pill to swallow for the broadcasters.

Laura Phillips

Laura Phillips
0115 976 6182
lphillips@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Peer to Patent pilot launch – stronger patents as a result?

Tuesday, June 21st, 2011

IP Minister Baroness Wilcox launched the UK’s six month Peer to Patent pilot on 1 June. The project is aimed at encouraging experts within the community to assist with the review of patent applications (initially in the field of computing) and to research and upload relevant prior art for consideration. The hope is that this will lead to weaker patents being sifted out earlier and those patents that are granted being stronger.

Though there have been concerns that peer review could be negative with competitors attacking rival applications, earlier trials in the US and Australia appear to have been largely successful and so there is little reason to suspect that results in the UK will be significantly different. The real test may, however, come later when we see whether the project can be extended to other fields of technology.

Posted by Emma Tuck, who specialises in Intellectual property disputes relating to patents, trade marks, designs and copyright; non-contentious intellectual property matters including advising on licensing, assignment, confidentiality and collaboration agreements

Emma Tuck

Emma Tuck
0121 237 3908
etuck@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Bunny battle settled

Thursday, June 16th, 2011

The long standing dispute between the creators of Miffy and Hello Kitty’s companion Cathy has finally been settled.

Miffy, a small white female rabbit, was created in 1955 by Dick Bruna. Cathy, also a small white female rabbit, was created by Sanrio in 1976.

In 2010 Mercis Media BV (Mr Bruna’s copyright management firm) brought trademark and copyright infringement proceedings against Sanrio. Why it took Mr Bruna 34 years to bring proceedings is unclear…

Sanrio was ordered to stop production, sale and marketing of Cathy character goods in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg and to pay €25,000 per day if it did not comply, up to a maximum of €2m.

Sanrio appealed and filed a counter claim seeking the Miffy trade mark be removed from the register.

The matter has now been resolved, with Sanrio agreeing to no longer use the Cathy character. Both parties have also agreed to donate €150,000 jointly to the victims of the Japan earthquake. A very commendable settlement indeed.

Oliver Laing

Oliver Laing
0115 908 4854
olaing@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 9.0/10 (1 vote cast)