China - Compendium of China National Intellectual Property Strategy adopted

China - Compendium of China National Intellectual Property Strategy adopted
The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) recently announced that the Chinese State Council has promulgated a "Compendium of China National Intellectual Property Strategy".
The 'Strategy' aims to bring China to a higher level of intellectual property right (IPR) creation, utilisation, protection and administration by 2020, as well as improving IPR protection and enhancing public awareness of it. It should also help enhance Chinese competitiveness and facilitate the opening up of China to the outside world.
The plan is to complete the IP law-enforcement and administration system (including by strengthening judicial measures against IP infringement), further advancing IP laws and regulations and strengthening IP's guiding role in economic, cultural and public policies.
The new "Strategy" should make China more attractive to small and medium-size enterprises that are still reluctant to do business in the People Republic because of their fear of systematic infringements of their IP rights.

eBay held to be jointly responsible for sale of Hermès fakes

In a landmark decision, the Troyes High Court has held that eBay was jointly responsible for the sale of counterfeit Hermès bags on its auction platform. The court considered that eBay, in its capacity as "provider of online communication services" for a brokerage activity, had the obligation to discourage use of its website in an unlawful manner by providing appropriate means to sellers, purchasers and IP rights owners.

EU - The European Generic Medicines Association publishes a report on patent system and generic drugs

European Union. The European Generic Medicines Association publishes a report on patent system and generic drugs
The European Generic Medicines Association (EGA) recently published a report on patent-related barriers to market entry for generic medicines in the EU. According to EGA, several flaws of the European patent system prevent the effective entry of cheap generic medicines onto the market.
The "patent linkage", i.e. the practice of linking market approval for generic drugs to a series of conditions related to the original patented pharmaceutical products, is identified as one of the main barriers for generic medicines. According to the report, this practice is inconsistent with European law. Moreover, EGA argues that national medicine agencies apply it in different and ill-defined ways, often under the pressure of the industry, thus hindering the timely and effective introduction of generic medicines onto the market.
The EGA report also points out other weaknesses of the patent system having the same effect, such as the granting of low-quality pharmaceutical patents, the patent thickets and follow-on patents and the long patent litigation procedures.

European Patent Office - Special Edition 2008 of the EPO Case Law

The European Patent Office (EPO) recently published the case law of the EPO boards of appeal for 2007 as a supplement to its official journal.
The publication aims to present and facilitate access to the boards' case law. It sorts the most important decisions by topic (inventive step, novelty, sufficiency of disclosure, etc.) with a short related summary. It also gives statistical information on the activities of the boards (for example that they have settled 1702 cases in 2007).

Bando "Made in Italy Piano Industria 2015"

È' disponibile sul sito del Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico il Piano di Progetto relativo al Bando "Made in Italy Piano Industria 2015".
Il Piano del Progetto di innovazione industriale mira alla maggiore competitività di Piccole e Medie Imprese che fanno parte delle filiere produttive del Made in Italy .
I settori di riferimento sono : sistema moda, sistema casa, sistema alimentare e sistema della meccanica.
Finalità del bando e del relativo piano é di rendere accessibili le particolari soluzioni tecnologiche per l'innovazione di prodotto e di processo:
• tecnologie dei nuovi materiali, nanotecnologie, biotecnologie, meccatronica;
• tecnologie abilitanti nell’ambito dell’informatica, dell’organizzazione, della logistica e della distribuzione.
Il Piano fornisce le linee guida per impostare i programmi di ricerca e sviluppo presentabili dalle imprese.
In attuazione del Piano di progetto, adottato con decreto interministeriale del 6 marzo 2008, è stato emanato un bando che stanzia 190 milioni di euro per la concessione di agevolazioni a sostegno della realizzazione di programmi finalizzati allo sviluppo di nuove tipologie di prodotti e/o servizi, con elevato contenuto di innovazione tecnologica e in grado di determinare impatti sul sistema economico.
Il testo completo del bando e del Piano di progetto sono scaricabili dal sito http://www.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/

The Europen Court of Justice rules on Ferrero Mon Cheri Case C-108/08

Italian confectioners Ferrero SpA, famed for their Mon Cheri chocolates, have succeeded in blocking the attempts of Swiss pastry maker Cornu SA from registering as a Community trade mark the word Ferro. The European Court of Justice considered that, given the similarity of the words Ferrero (protected as an earlier German trade mark) and Ferro, and the similarity of the businesses' respective goods, there was a likelihood of confusion among the relevant public. Said the court:
"There is a risk that customers will confuse products such as Giotto, Raffaello and Mon Cheri marketed under the trade mark Ferrero and salty biscuits marketed under the trade mark Ferro".
This dispute has been running for eight years. This decision overturns that of the European Court of First Instance, which rejected Ferrero's challenge in 2006, saying the minimal similarity between the names and the distinctive character of the Ferrero brand did not create a risk of confusion.

Adidas: la corte di Giustizia Europea si esprime a proposito del caso delle strisce

Non esiste un monopolio per l’utilizzo di un segno comune in ambito commerciale ma, nello stesso tempo, bisogna porre estrema attenzione a tutelare i rischi di confusione da parte del consumatore. Questo è il sunto della Sentenza datata 10 aprile 2008 della Corte di Giustizia Europea intervenuta nella causa C ‑102/07, relativa alle note “strisce” identificative della multinazionale Adidas.
Adidas AG si era infatti rivolta ai Giudici olandesi “per impedire ad alcune catene di grandi magazzini, tra i quali il più noto H&M, di vendere articoli sportivi con due strisce verticali invece di tre”. Un utilizzo fuorviante per i consumatori. Per le aziende chiamate in questione l’impiego di due strisce, semplici decorazioni, non può essere appannaggio esclusivo di una singola azienda.
Rivoltisi alla Corte di Gustizia Europea, i Giudici olandesi hanno ricevuto dal Lussemburgo indicazioni circa il modo di procedere per risolvere la controversia e, se necessario, bloccare la produzione di articoli delle realtà citate da Adidas. Per la Corte di Giustizia Europea, basta che un buon numero di consumatori crei un collegamento tra segno e marchio protetto per far scattare il divieto di commercializzare prodotti ingannevoli. Non è stato stabilito tuttavia il diritto all’esclusivo sfruttamento commerciale di un elemento comune come la striscia, soprattutto in settori produttivi diversi da quello sportivo. Una realtà che le Corti di Giustizia olandesi dovranno ora valutare.
In breve, la massima della sentenza: “La prima direttiva del Consiglio 21 dicembre 1988, 89/104/CEE, sul ravvicinamento delle legislazioni degli Stati membri in materia di marchi d’impresa, deve essere interpretata nel senso che non si può tener conto dell’imperativo di disponibilità all’atto della valutazione dell’estensione del diritto esclusivo del titolare d’un marchio, salvo nella misura in cui trova applicazione la limitazione degli effetti del marchio definita all’art. 6, n.1, lett. b), della detta Direttiva”.

New German Law on the enforcement of IP

From Germany comes the news that the German Bundestag, Germany's parliament, yesterday voted to pass the "Gesetz zur Umsetzung der EU-Durchsetzungs-Richtlinie". The new law implements EU Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, which is also known as the "IPR Enforcement Directive".
A press release by the German Federal Minstry of Justice states that the legislation will help in the fight against product piracy and as such strengthen intellectual property rights. Germany's Federal Minister of Justice, Brigitte Zypries, explained that the proctection of creative works was of vital importance for the German economy in sustaining its position in an evironment of few natural resources. Zypries further explained that product piracy was on the increase and caused substantial economic damage and destroyed jobs. Counterfeit products could present a considerable security risk; for example in the fields of spare parts or medication. Zyrpies further argued that this situation had to be confronted on many levels and one way of doing so was by improving the legal instruments available.
The new law, which is implementing the IPR Enforcement Directive, amends Germany's Trade Marks Act, Patent Act, Copyright Act, the Design and Utility Model laws, the plant variety and semiconductor's protection laws. It also amends the respective laws concerning interlocutory measures and injunctions, evidence, judicial publications, the protection of georgraphical originseizures as well the laws concerning damages and costs.

Imprese Farmaceutiche e abuso di posizione dominante

Il 1 Aprile 2008 sono state depositate le Conclusioni dell’Avvocato Generale della Corte di Giustizia delle Comunità Europee, Dámaso Ruiz-Jarabo, relativamente alle Cause riunite da C-468/06 a C-478/06 (Sot. Lélos Kai Sia EE (and Others) v GlaxoSmithKline AEVE), in merito alla domanda di pronuncia pregiudiziale proposta dal Trimeles Efeteio Athinon (Corte d’appello di Atene, Grecia), con riferimento ad una possibile fattispecie di “abuso di posizione dominante” nel contesto del commercio parallelo di prodotti medicinali.
Nelle sue Conclusioni, l’AG sostiene che “una impresa farmaceutica in situazione di posizione dominante che rifiuti di far fronte agli ordini dei distributori, al fine di limitare (opporsi al) il fenomeno delle importazioni parallele, è colpevole di pratica abusiva della concorrenza ai senti dell’articolo 82 del Trattato sulle Comunità Europee”. In particolare, l’AG ritiene che sebbene il sistema che regola i prezzi dei prodotti medicinali all’interno dell’UE non sia del tutto libero, i produttori mantengono tuttavia un margine sufficiente di autonomia.
Pertanto, stante il generale obbligo di garantire la disponibilità di prodotti che, come nel caso di specie, interessano un settore particolarmente delicato (salute) il taglio netto delle forniture a danno dei concorrenti non sembrerebbe giustificabile. Inoltre, sebbene eventuali riduzioni delle forniture possano in talune circostanze essere teoricamente accettabili (es. in un’ottica di legittima protezione di oggettivi interessi commerciali di un’impresa), nel caso di specie (allegazioni GSK), il nesso casuale tra le perdite di guadagno sofferte dalla ricorrente dovute alla concorrenza degli importatori paralleli e la contestuale riduzione degli investimenti nel settore di R&D non risulta essere sufficientemente comprovato alla luce della documentazione prodotta ed anche ed a maggior ragione in forza delle esistenti norme comunitarie in materia di R&D che gia’ prevedono, inter alia, adeguati incentivi a vantaggio e tutela dell’innovazione (es. norme relative a riduzioni dei costi per imprese impegnate in R&D e. “block exemptions regulation for horizontal R&D agreements”).
Da ultimo, l’AG ritiene che un’impresa in situazione di posizione dominante deve essere in grado di giustificare la propria condotta (potenzialmente abusiva in quanto potenzialmente anticoncorrenziale) in termini positivi di maggiore efficienza economica. Ne consegue, secondo l’AG, che la condotta posta in essere da un’impresa al solo fine di ostacolare la posizione sul mercato dei propri concorrenti (e non, al contrario, volta ad un legittimo miglioramento della propria efficienza/redditività) e’ illecita. Si attende ora solo il provvedimento finale della Corte che, sebbene come noto non sia formalmente vincolata dalle Conclusioni dell’AG di cui sopra, di norma difficilmente si discosterà dell’impianto motivazionale da quest’ultimo articolato.

European Patent Office - new schedule of fees applicable starting 1st April 2008

In a decision in December 2007, the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation adopted an amended version of the schedule of fees to be paid to the Office for the filing, examination, search, renewal etc. of European patents.
The new schedule of fees will enter into force on 1st April 2008. The new amounts of the fees shall be binding for payments made on or after that date.
European patents can be granted for the 34 contracting states (as at January 2008) to the European Patent Convention (EPC) and, at the applicant's request, can be extended to Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia.
A European patent application consists of a request for the grant of a European patent a description of the invention, one or more claims, any drawings referred to in the description or claims, and an abstract.
The request for grant of a European patent must be filed on the form prescribed by the European Patent Office.
The minimum requirements to establish a filing date of a European patent application are: an indication that a European patent is sought, information identifying the applicant or allowing the applicant to be contacted, and a description of the invention or a reference to a previously filed application. The applicant will then need to complete the application documents as listed above.

Google Inc. and its G.mail trade mark stopped by Germany

Google Inc., owner of the world's most-used internet search engine, has failed in its bid to get European Union-wide trade mark protection for the word Gmail, the name of its web-based email service. In a decision given on 26 February, this freshly-posted OHIM Board of Appeal decision considered the word to be confusingly similar to an existing German trade mark owned by businessman Daniel Giersch and which consists of a slogan containing the word G-mail ("G-mail ... ... und die Post geht richtig ab" -- meaning "G-mail ... an the service really takes off"). According to the Board of Appeal, the relevant German consumers would be confused into believing that the services of Giersch and Google shared a common commercial origin.Giersch received his German trade mark in 2000 and has been fighting Google's application in Europe since 2004. He operates a mail business that lets users send electronic files and messages through a central email system, the controversial "G" standing for his last name.

The Supreme Court in Italy statues on Lego toys

The Supreme Court in Italy has rendered its final decision in the Lego case. According to the Court, it is not unfair competition to make and sell compatible bricks so far as they can be distinguished by consumers from Lego's (i.e. so long as there is no risk of confusion). This decision is in high contrast with an earlier Lego dispute in 1998, where the court followed the German Supreme Court ruling in Kleinbaustein BGH, II.

German Federal Patent Court rules on the trade mark protection on the red colour

German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) has published the following brief guidelines regarding trade mark protection on the red colour:
"If an abstract colour is used in connection with goods over a longer period of time in such a way that it creates an interconnection between the colour and goods on the one hand and between the colour and the manufacturer of the goods on the other hand, one can assume, that the targeted consumers will have become accustomed to recognising the colour not merely as the colour of the goods but as a sign that indicates trade origin".

Record Number of International Trademark Filing in 2007

A record 39,945 international trademark applications were received in 2007 by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Madrid system for the international registration of trademarks, representing a 9.5% increase on figures for 2006. Applicants from Germany, for the 15th consecutive year, led the list of top filers, followed by users in France, the United States of America (USA) and the European Community (EC). China remained the most designated country in international trademark applications reflecting increasing levels of trading activity by foreign companies in China.

UE marchio STG per la Pizza napoletata

Il 14 febbraio 2008 la Gazzetta Ufficiale dell'Unione Europea ha pubblicato la domanda di registrazione del marchio STG (specialità tradizionale garantita) . La domanda è stata presentata dall'Italia e riguarda la famosissima pizza napoletana forse il prodotto Made in Italy per antonomasia. Per la conclusione dell'iter relativo alla registrazione dovranno decorrere 6 mesi dalla data di pubblicazione per permettere agli altri Paesi europei eccezioni. Curiose sono le caratteristiche dichiarate del prodotto: pomodoro, mozzarella di bufala DOP o mozzarella STG, olio extra vergine d'oliva e origano. Particolari sono inoltre le misure della pizza: il diametro non dovrà essere superiore ai 35 cm, il bordo rialzato tra 1 e 2 cm e una consistenza moribda, elastica e facilmente piegabile a libro.

Proprietà Industriale e Rito Societario - dal Senato il primo sì

Il 18 gennaio 2003 il Senato ha approvato il ddl n. 1609, che modifica le disposizioni processuali di cui all'articolo 134 del codice della proprietà industriale, di cui al decreto legislativo 10 febbraio 2005, n. 30, rendendo possibile l'utilizzo, nei procedimenti assegnati alle sezioni speciali per la trattazione delle controversie riguardanti la proprietà industriale e intellettuale, del diritto societario introdotto con il decreto legislativo 17 gennaio 2003. (Disegno di legge Senato della Repubblica 16/01/2008, n. 1609)

Ue - The European Group on Ethics' opinion on the production of food from cloned animals

The European Group on Ethics (EGE), an independent group of experts whose function is to advise the Commission on science, technology and ethics issues, recently published an opinion against the production of food from cloned animals. EGE states that it doubts that the production of such food is "ethically justified" and makes some recommendations to promote European discussions and policies to address this issue.
The Commission requested EGE's opinion as part of a wider debate regarding food products originating from cloned animals, which is currently going on in both the EU and the U.S. The European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) also examined the issue and recently stated that such food is unlikely to be dangerous for consumers.
The Commission will examine EGE's and EFSA's opinions and is expected to launch a public consultation. Given the role of ethics in European research, the outcome of the debate may influence future research in this area.

The Opinion by ECJ Advocate General on the case C-102/07 Agidas AG and Adidas Benelux

The opinion by the ECJ Advocate General on the case C‑102/07, Adidas AG and Adidas Benelux BV v. Marca Mode CV, C&A Nederland, H&M Hennes & Mauritz Netherlands BV and Vendex KBB Nederland BV, has been issued on January 16, 2008.
With a somewhat surprising “middle of the road” opinion the AG Dámaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer has affirmed that:
1. while for originally non distinctive (due to their descriptive character) marks even an acquired distinctiveness or an elevate degree of renown cannot cure their original (I called it the genetic) defect, so that the public interest prevents their owners to oppose use of similarly descriptive marks,
2. for marks which were originally non distinctive for reasons others than descriptiveness (like in the case at hand, i.e. three stripes with little or none imaginative content) but have then become distinctive and well known due to the efforts of the TM owner, to deny protection against similar marks (two stripes, four stripes), would frustrate the Directive’s objective and rational, since there is no really public interest in keeping free signs which are per sè incapable to communicate to the consumers the origin or the qualities of the goods and services.
If confirmed by the ECJ the impact of this opinion may be a blow to the enforcement of many originally descriptive trademarks which have lately become well known through intense use and promotional investments and which now will see the possibility to oppose other similar marks severely curtailed. On the other hand, figurative marks and arbitrary marks should see the extent of protections quite enlarged.
The facts underlying the case are fairly straightforward. Adidas is famous for its three-stripe trademarks and owns many registered trademarks in this respect. When it became aware that several clothing companies were using a two-stripe pattern, it sought a court order to prevent them from marketing clothing with the three-stripe pattern or a similar pattern, such as the two-stripe pattern. The Dutch Court of Appeal decided that because of the repute of the three-stripe mark, its scope of protection was broad. Although initially the mark was not very distinctive, it had acquired distinctiveness through use.
However, the Court of Appeal also stated that the broad scope of protection did not mean that other stripe patterns fell within this scope. To that end, it stated that such patterns are common and should be available for third parties. Adidas appealed from this judgment to the Dutch Supreme Court, essentially disputing the role assigned by the Court of Appeal to the public interest. The Supreme Court decided that clarification from the ECJ was required and submitted a request for a preliminary ruling on three questions, the most important of which is whether or not the public interest (in not unduly restricting the use of certain signs by competitors) should influence the scope of protection of a trade mark that was not distinctive ab initio or that was strictly descriptive, but has acquired distinctiveness through use.
The AG’s opinion starts by recognizing that as a matter of law a sign that lacks distinctive character, can nevertheless acquire distinctiveness through use. Such a sign can therefore become a valid trade mark, able to denote the origin of products and/or services. However, this may come into conflict with the German based theory of "Freihältebedürfnis" (the need to keep certain signs free for use by all) which was already examined by the ECJ in its famous Chiemsee decision (cases C‑108/97 e C‑109/98, Windsurfing Chiemsee of May 4, 1999).
The AG declines to give a straight answer to the compatibility of the Freihältebedürfnis with EU law, but essentially denies that Freihältebedürfnis may be applied across the board. For the AG, there is a difference between non distinctive marks by reason of descriptiveness (i.e. when the sign falls into art. 3(1) (c) of the Directive) and non distinctive marks for other reasons (i.e. when the sign falls into 3(1) (b)). While the for the former no matter what, the TM owner cannot really expect to own a concept, for the latter, the efforts of the owner to “characterize” its mark and make the consumer aware of the nature of mark of a certain non originally distinctive mark should not be parasitized by third parties and accordingly Freihältebedürfnis should only apply to originally descriptive marks.

United Kingdom - a new fast track service for trade mark

United Kingdom - The UK-IPO recently announced the launch of a new fast track service for trade mark applications and a new version of the online patent filing system
The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) recently introduced new services for the filing of patents and trade marks. They are particularly relevant for European small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that plan to protect their IP rights in the UK.
First of all, UK-IPO announced the launch of a new fast track service for trade mark applications, which provides quick registration of a trade mark. The new service will become operational on 6th April 2008.
At the same time, UK-IPO launched a new improved version of the online patent filing system, which allows users to request an online certified copy of patent applications, provide information about late declarations of priority and request entry of an international patent application into the UK national phase. Over the next few months further enhancements in the online services are expected

EU design agreement

EU joins Hague design agreement The European Union's membership of the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement dealing with the international registration of industrial designs became operational on 1 January 2008.Joining the Hague process for designs allows companies, with a single application, to obtain protection not only throughout the EU with the Community Design, but also in the countries which are members of the Geneva Act. The process aims to simplify procedures, reduce the costs for international protection and make administration easier.Membership follows the EC's submission of its instrument of accession to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva on 24 September 2007. This establishes a link between the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement system, which is administered by WIPO, and the Community design system administered by the OHIM.