A Rosey Future Ahead? - EU Commission Addresses Copyright for 2016

As the year is nearly coming to a close, this writer thought it would be pertinent to set our sights for the coming year. 2016 will hopefully be one of further advancement, change and full of cases detailing the law in more intricate, nuanced and better ways. It is always interesting to get perspectives on future changes from the legislature, and such thoughts were shared by the EU Commission and its initiatives on copyright for copyright.

A more modern, more European copyright framework

The framework where copyright operates has gone through a massive sea of changes, not only in terms of the media covered and people's interaction with that media, but also the technological advancements that have effectively redefined human interaction, media consumption and our perception of the world. With this change a strong, but malleable approach to reform would need to be adopted, and as countries have taken their steps towards a newer copyright regime, a EU-centric change was also needed. The EU Commission, as stated above, has brought forth several points of reform, introduced in their press release only a handful of days ago, aiming to modernise the copyright rules in the Union.

Widening access to content across the EU

The Commission envisions the enablement of EU citizens to take their paid-for (or subscribed-to) content with them in the Union, or as the press release states: "[the] aim[] [is] to allow a better circulation of content, offer more choice to Europeans, to strengthen cultural diversity and provide more opportunities for the creative sector". Arguably this would be a tremendous improvement and a move for the harmonization of copyright within the EU, accessibility to content, and to expand the markets beyond their respective national borders.

This, per the proposal released some time ago, would be achieved through an obligation on Member States to enable their citizens to access online content services (defined the same as in Directive 2010/13/EU or as a service, both paid for or not, whose main feature is the provision of access and use of copyright works) when they are temporarily out of the country the service originally is provided.

How this is implemented in each Member State, and whether any restrictions will be added to post-proposal, will remain to be seen, but this writer believes this would be a huge leap forward in harmonizing the internal market, and to enable paying customers to access the services and/or content they have duly paid for.

Exceptions to copyright and creating a fairer marketplace

The Commission also sets out an intent to assess the exceptions that apply to copyright protected works, specifically in relation to education, research (data mining, specifically) and the use of such works by disabled individuals. They also aim to provide further clarity to the legal standing of images uploaded by internet users of monuments (this issue discussed more here).

It was the day that Sally had foreseen, and was dreading, all along

It is hard to say what the Commission is set to change or clarify, but this writer will express his concern for the latter point on images featuring monuments and their possible status as infringing or non-infringing works. The spread and dissemination of information is important, as well as individual expression through photographical works, and the dissuasion or illegality of such expression would be worrisome.

The Commission also wants to tackle the remuneration of content creators in the online sphere, specifically in relation to news aggregators, and will "...analyse whether solutions are needed at EU level to increase legal certainty, transparency and balance in the system that governs the remuneration of authors and performers in the EU, taking EU and national competences into account".

This was addressed in more detail in their communication as an examination of "...whether action is needed on the definition of the rights of ‘communication to the public’ and of ‘making available’... [and] whether any action specific to news aggregators is needed, including intervening on rights". This area of the law is still quite murky, and further clarification and potential legislation might be needed to balance the current arguable free-for-all in the online space regarding news aggregation.

Fighting piracy

Finally, the Commission wants to go further in the enforcement of copyright against possible pirates, engaging in a public consultation on the matter with all stake-holders (focusing on the efficacy of Directive 2004/48/EC). Additionally it will include considerations on "...how to make the removal of illegal content by online intermediaries more efficient".

Their objective is clearly a 'follow-the-money' approach, however a strict, DMCA style weaponry could leave legitimate entities and/or fair dealing without proper protection. As their communication states: "...the Commission will assess options and consider by autumn 2016 the need to amend the legal framework focussing on commercial-scale infringements, inter alia to clarify, as appropriate, the rules for identifying infringers, the application of provisional and precautionary measures and injunctions and their cross-border effect, the calculation and allocation of damages and legal costs".

This writer hopes that the review process proposed by the Commission above remains fair and balanced, and remains hopeful things will be fine down the line. Nevertheless, 2016 should be an exciting time for copyright, and we will all undoubtedly stay interested in the proposed regulations that will be put forth.

Source: IPKat  

The Origin of IP - Historical Protection of Intellectual Property

The protection of your rights through intellectual property law is not by any means a modern-day quirk, stemming from hundreds of years of (varying levels of) protection or acknowledgement. Many of us who work with IP within the common law are more than familiar with the Statute of Anne in 1709, which offered the predecessor to today's protection of copyright, and the 'renaissance' of monopolizing intellectual efforts outside of pure monetary exclusion, and the Statute of Monopolies a few decades before it. Even so, one could imagine that there would be more historical, potentially ancient considerations containing IP protection, which begs the question: where are the historical origins of IP protection?

Copyright

As said above, the Statute of Anne was truly the first manifestation of the modern regime of copyright protection in the UK, and subsequently all over the common law, due to its wide-spread adoption within England's (former) colonies. However, the Statute was not the only incarnation of copyright protection in the world up till that date.

According to historical records, one of the first forms of protection for copyright works (as one could argue they were) was in 500 BC when chefs in Sybaris, a Greek colony in Italy, were afforded a monopoly for a year on the creation of specific recipes. Although, indirectly at least, copyright works, this suggests that it could be one of the first instances of copyright protection (more on which can be read here in a modern context). Similarly a few hundred years later, Vitruvius, a Roman author, successfully convicted some poets who had copied and passed off others' works as their own.

Some ancient thinkers were ahead of their time

Both the Romans and the Greeks, especially in the context of comedies, distinguished the appropriation and copying of works by other authors as theft ('furtum'). However, they still allowed for the compilation of two or more plays into one, and even criticism of other works, which were seen as corner-stones of the betterment of knowledge, science and overall the retention of intellectual output.

These examples do not showcase a concrete systematic protection of copyright during ancient times, but illustrates that, even though not protected by law, the unique expression of authors was seen as highly valuable and thus something worth protecting. One can imagine the roots of our current system stemming from ideologies that the Greeks and Romans held dear, and this writer, for one, would like to think this was one of the first steps into the foray of IP in human history.

Trademarks

Trademarks, as many of you will be aware, serve as an indicator of the origin and quality of goods and services, providing an observant consumer the goods and services they have duly paid for. The history of registered trademarks in the UK dates back to the 1800s, with Bass Brewery's iconic triangle being the very first one to be registered under the Trade Marks Registration Act 1875. Even so, our historical predecessors had already used trademarks to great effect before the Act's introduction.

In Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, potters often marked their pottery with distinctive signs (referred to as 'potter's marks'), showing who had made it, and undoubtedly, signalling the craftsmanship associated with that particular item and its maker (examples can be seen here). Although these marks did not serve the same purpose as modern trademarks do, one could argue that, even though they were not a legally protected badge of origin, they were akin to their modern counterparts. Seemingly these marks were never enforced, but one can imagine they potentially were a deciding factor for those who would purchase the items.

Patents

The more modern concept of patents derives itself from the 1470s, when the Italian City State of Venice granted 10 year patents to anyone who would make a new and ingenious contrivance in the city of Venice, and notified the State Judicial Office of their invention. The Statute of Monopolies 1623 followed some 150 years later, but the Venetian initiative paved the way for patents as we know it today.

The UK, however, was not entirely outdone by their Italian counterparts, and patents did exist before the enactment of the Statute of Monopolies. Letters of patents could be issued, and duly were, by the Monarchy, and one of the first recorded instances was in 1331. Although not only a way to protect inventions, also conveying monopolies in corporations, titles and other royal grants, they still illustrate the importance of inventions even over 100 years before the enactment of the Venetian patent law.

Conclusion

IP clearly has a long and colorful history, and this only highlights its importance not only in today's world, but for years to come. Whether you are a believer in the common ownership and free dissemination of information, or the protector of the monetary incentives many aspiring (and successful) artists, musicians, inventors and creators often need, you have to appreciate the value that IP gives to all of us. Without our Greek, Roman and Venetian predecessors, who knows what IP laws would look like today.

Copyright Calm - Yoga Poses Refused Copyright Protection in the US

Many in the legal community could benefit from more relaxation and meditation, and today's fitness culture harbors a great appreciation for activities like pilates and yoga. As many of you will be aware, yoga (and similar forms of exercise) are composed of a variety of poses and movements, allowing for the targeting of specific muscle groups and/or physical (and mental) benefits as a result. If the different poses and exercises were not enough to confuse many, there are several different styles of yoga, all encompassing different methodologies and exercises, such as Ashtanga and Hatha yoga, some of which have been developed fairly recently by modern yogis. One of these is Bikram Yoga, developed by Bikram Choudhury, comprising of 26 poses conducted in a hot, humid environment. As the style has been designed and 'created' by Mr. Choudhury, one could imagine the program or poses could be protected; a fact that Mr. Choudhury has vigorously asserted over the years. To that end, could a yoga pose or series of poses be protected by copyright?

The US Court of Appeals recently took this question on in the case of Bikram Yoga College of India v Evolution Yoga, LLC, which dealt with the aforementioned yoga style. Bikram Choudhury's version of Hatha yoga consists of 26 different 'asanas', or in other words, poses, and two breathing exercises, all collectively known as the Sequence. He also released a book called "Bikram's Beginning Yoga Class" in late the 1970s, and registering its with the US Copyright Office along with a 'compilation of exercises' some time later. The final chapter in the development of his yoga empire was the launch of a Bikram Yoga instructors course in the late 1990s, called the "Bikram Yoga Teacher Training Course", where individuals could learn the Sequence and the underlying philosophy of Bikram Yoga and instruct others in the same. In the early 2000s, Mark Frost and Zefea Samson participated in the course, and subsequently founded Evolution Yoga, where they taught, among other classes, "hot yoga", which was similar to Bikram's take on yoga. Mr. Choudhury subsequently took the two to court, alleging copyright infringement of his copyright protected works.

The case stems from the idea-expression dichotomy, which separates the protection of ideas without an expressive manifestation in a tangible form. The Court therefore had to assess whether the Sequence would amount to a mere idea, or whether it would be a form of expression protected by copyright.

Yoga isn't always all fun and stretches

Under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), many different forms of works are covered by copyright; however subsection (b) specifically excludes protection from "...any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work". Judge Wardlaw, handing down the Court of Appeals' judgment, extensively considered precedent dealing with the Court's view on the division of ideas and expression. Baker v Selden, dealing with the protection (or lack thereof) for a book-keeping system, and Palmer v Braun, dealing with the protectability of meditation exercises, illustrate the unavailability of copyright protection for ideas, even if they are 'expressed' in some sort of tangible form.

Ultimately, the Sequence was deemed to be not protected by copyright. Even though Mr. Choudhury's Sequence promotes health and the development of human mental and physical well-being, the Court determined it fell short from copyright's remit. Judge Wardlaw did, however, remark that "...if it is entitled to protection at all, that protection is more properly sought through the patent process". The prevention of competition was also a consideration for the Court, as they saw that "[c]onsumers would have little reason to buy Choudhury's book if Choudhury held a monopoly on the practice of the very activity he sought to popularize. Rather than "stimulat[ing] artistic creativity for the general public good," copyright protection for the Sequence would prevent the public from engaging with... [the] idea and building upon it".

Mr. Choudhury also argued that the Sequence should be protected as a compilation work under 17 U.S.C. § 103. Judge Warlaw quickly rejected this argument, as, for a work to be awarded protection under section 103, it would first have to qualify as a protectable work under section 102; something that, as the above shows, it failed to do. The argument was based on Mr. Choudhury's arrangement and organization of the poses and exercises within the Sequence, but this still does not extend copyright to subject matter that it did not protect to begin with. This makes sense, as it seeks to prevent the protection of non-qualifying works, since the extension of compilation protection to works not covered by section 102 could open the floodgates for works not contemplated by the legislature in drafting the law.

Finally, the last argument dealt with by the Court was whether the Sequence would be protected as a choreographic work under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(4). Similarly to the above, the claim fails due to a lack of protection as a qualifying work under section 102 from the very beginning. As settled by Judge Wardlaw: "[e]ven if the Sequence could fit within some colloquial definitions of dance or choreography, it remains a process ineligible for copyright protection".

The case remains a novelty in the sphere of copyright, and offers very little that was not known already. Yet, it does highlight an important aspect of intellectual property law: the importance of picking your form of protection. Should Mr. Choudhury sought patent protection for the Sequence, he could have potentially used it to prevent others from using his Sequence, or teaching similar routines at non-affiliated yoga studios. Even so, he did not, and fell foul of copyright and its remit.

Source: JDSupra

Retrospective - Groundless Threats in Intellectual Property Law

A big aspect of intellectual property law is the possible threat of infringement, even when you might not know it. With strong legal protective measures comes a great deal of responsibility in wielding that capability, especially in the light of competition. IP can be used to stifle those aiming to compete with you, as well as those who blatantly want to benefit from your hard-work and intellectual output. A balance has to therefore be struck, and certain legal tethers have been placed to restrict the unwarranted use of IP rights without due cause. Groundless threat provisions exist in relation to all registrable IP rights (trademarks, patents and designs) under the Patents Act 1977, Trade Marks Act 1994, Registered Designs Act 1949 and Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. What amounts to a groundless threat is not entirely clear under all of the provisions above (which act fairly similarly to each other), however the High Court endeavored to answer this at the cusp of the 21st century.

The case of Brain v Ingledew Brown Bennington & Garrett (No 3), decided in 1997, dealt with Patrick John Brain, who, in the early 90s, set up a consulting business in an effort to exploit new technologies and inventions all over the world, particularly in the Far East. Upon meeting Jørgen Jensen, the Head of Chemistry at Risø National Labratory (the second defendant), a Danish research company, the pair struck a deal to utilize a patented technology developed at Risø by a number of individuals called "Wet Oxdiation" (e.g. patents US5053142A and EP0284754) in foreign markets. The pair started a company called Intox Corporation Limited, and successfully marketed the process to a company in Canada, which included passing on technical documents attained by Mr. Jensen. Risø found out about Intox Corporations' activities, and initiated court proceedings against Mr. Jensen in Denmark. During the proceedings Risø also instructed UK lawyers, Ingledew Brown Bennington & Garrett, to pursue Intox Corporation. Mr. Brain argued that, in correspondence between him and lawyers at Ingledew, several threats were included, and as a result, the projects incorporating the above technology did not come to fruition, causing him a great deal of monetary loss. He then initiated proceedings for groundless threats under the Patents Act 1977.

Under the above Act, in section 70: "...a person (whether or not the proprietor of, or entitled to any right in, a patent) by circulars, advertisements or otherwise threatens another person with proceedings for any infringement of a patent, a person aggrieved by the threats (whether or not he is the person to whom the threats are made) may... bring proceedings in the court against the person making the threats".

Rory was aggrieved by threats made in relation to his cap

Justice Laddie, handing down the judgment of the High Court, had to therefore first determine whether Mr. Brain was a 'person aggrieved', allowing him to bring forth his claim. For a person to be considered as such there has to be clear damage, not just hurt feelings. As Justice Laddie described it: "...a trader's chosen route to exploitation of his product or process is interfered with by the threat, that is damage in the broad sense and makes him a person aggrieved". Reliance on the threat, and subsequent action causing detriment, is key, not just annoyance or mere displeasure. Even if loss is prevented or mitigated in the event of a threat does not mean the person cannot be seen as a person aggrieved. What the person has to show is "...that his commercial interests are or are likely to be adversely affected in a real as opposed to a fanciful or minimal way". The Court saw that, as the threats were made to Mr. Brain directly, that he would fall under the definition of a 'person aggrieved'.

Justice Laddie then had to assess what the meaning of the letters were, and whether they actually constituted a threat. This assessment has to be done "...in accordance with how they would be understood by an ordinary reader", and what the initial impression would be to a reasonable addressee. In the light of the three letters discussed as a whole, Justice Laddie saw that their purpose would be reasonably understood as a threat to initiate patent proceedings.

Arguments as to the available defence under section 70(4), preventing any proceedings under section 70 for "...a threat to bring proceedings for an infringement alleged to consist of making or importing
a product for disposal or of using a process" (defined in section 60), failed, as the correspondence targets a much broader base of infringement, not just the ones exempted under section 60. Justice Laddie found that the defendants had made groundless threats against Mr. Brain, and ordered an inquiry into damages.

The law in relation to groundless threats has since moved on, and more leeway has been given in terms of bringing information as to any existing IP rights to the attention of the potentially infringing party. The Patents Act 2004 made significant changes to section 70, however the above does still apply to all groundless threat cases, giving the courts the basis for their determination for a cause of action under these provisions.

Taking a Break - Kit Kat Decision Issued by ECJ

For all lovers of confectionery goods the name Kit Kat will undoubtedly be a familiar one, even without its highly memorably slogan. The iconic British chocolate bar has been around since the 1930s, and above all else what many will remember is its shape, comprising of five individual chocolate covered wafer 'fingers' connected at the base by a lawyer of chocolate. As such shapes can be protected through intellectual property law, but whether Kit Kat's design is truly distinctive enough to be protected as a trade mark, has been a contested question here in the UK for several years, ultimately being referred to the European Court of Justice by Justice Arnold nearly two years ago in Société Des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [UK High Court of Chancery]. As a result the ECJ handed down its judgment in September this year.

The case of Société Des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [European Court of Justice] dealt with an application for a trademark by Nestle for a three-dimensional representation of the Kit Kat bar, omitting the embossed words "Kit Kat" from the top of the chocolate bar's individual fingers. After the application's publication Cadbury submitted an opposition against its registration, arguing a lack of distinctive character, initially having the mark rejected by the UK Intellectual Property Office, ending in Nestle's appeal to the UK High Court.

Justice Arnold submitted three questions to the ECJ prior to his later judgment applying the Court's consideration.

The ECJ started by answering the second question posed by Justice Arnold. What was asked was seen as "...whether Article 3(1)(e) of Directive 2008/95... must be interpreted as precluding registration as a trade mark of a sign consisting of the shape of goods where that shape contains three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result".

After a very brief consideration of precedent, especially relating to the prevention of any registration monopolizing a technical solution or functional characteristics, the Court determined that "...Article 3(1)(e)... must be interpreted as precluding registration as a trade mark of a sign consisting of the shape of goods where that shape contains three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result, provided, however, that at least one of the grounds for refusal of registration set out in that provision is fully applicable to the shape at issue". What remains key is the refusal of registration based on a single ground under Article 3(1)(e), even if, predominantly, the shape does not fall under all of the grounds. Public interest in the strict enforcement of the grounds of refusal was important in the Court's view, as a contrary position would allow for the monopolization of the very subject matter the Article seeks to disallow. What is uncertain is how this applies to a shape as whole and its respective components. Would a shape be negated as a whole if it contains a part that would fall under the grounds (negating the registrability of the whole design)? Arguably, this would be the case, but the decision leaves this unclear.

Terry's take on Halloween was more diabetes inducing

The Court then moved on to the third question, which it saw as asking "...whether Article 3(1)(e)(ii)... under which registration may be refused of signs consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, must be interpreted as referring only to the manner in which the goods at issue function or whether it also applies to the manner in which they are manufactured". As the wording of the sub-section does not discuss the manner of manufacture for the goods, the Court had to decide whether it implicitly does so. They quickly decided against this, setting out that "...that Article 3(1)(e)(ii)... must be interpreted as referring only to the manner in which the goods at issue function and it does not apply to the manner in which the goods are manufactured". The inclusion of manufacturing methods, in this writer's mind, would encroach onto the territory of patents, and how a product is made does not designate its origin; the primary function of trademarks.

Finally, the Court proceeded to question one, which was set out as "...whether an applicant to register a trade mark which has acquired a distinctive character following the use which has been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3)... must prove that the relevant class of persons perceive the goods or services designated exclusively by that mark, as opposed to any other mark which might also be present, as originating from a particular company, or whether it is sufficient for that applicant to prove that a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons recognise that mark and associate it with the applicant’s goods".

Again, considering precedent in brevity, the Court saw that "...in order to obtain registration of a trade mark which has acquired a distinctive character following the use which has been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3)... regardless of whether that use is as part of another registered trade mark or in conjunction with such a mark, the trade mark applicant must prove that the relevant class of persons perceive the goods or services designated exclusively by the mark applied for, as opposed to any other mark which might also be present, as originating from a particular company". What the question therefore requires is that the proprietor of the mark has to prove that the relevant class of people perceive their mark, in this case "Kit Kat", to only originate from them and not other proprietors selling similar goods, even if the goods contain other registered trademarks (or a design, in this case). The onus would be on Nestle to show that the shape of the chocolate bar, regardless of the inclusion of the words "Kit Kat", would be indicative of the source of the bar by itself (i.e. a distinctive feature). The Court did omit Justice Arnold's question on reliance on the mark, focusing on their 'perception' and 'recognition' of the mark. Arguably reliance does not necessarily follow the two, but this writer thinks, in the Court's mind, their intention is to include reliance through perception, as seeing and knowing a mark in conjunction with another would still carry some weight in the purchase decision, effectively creating a level of 'reliance'.

The case has since been referred back to the High Court for ultimate decision, but this writer thinks, based on earlier considerations, that the shape of the Kit Kat bar might not be enough to distinguish it from other similar ones to allow for the registration of the mark. The ECJ's answers to the questions seemed unsurprising, however leaving many things uncertain or somewhat unanswered, but give more nuanced guidance, which is never too abundant in today's legal sphere. How the case will be applied in the future is uncertain, but hopefully this application will manifest even more clarity as a result.

Source: IPKat

Genes Lost - Myriad Genetics Loses in the Australian High Court

The Myriad Genetics saga has been going on for several years now in the Land Down Under, and this writer has been waiting for the Australian High Court decision with bated breath. After a ruling in both the Federal Court and the Full Federal Court (more on which can be found here) in favor of Myriad Genetics, the cause seemed all but lost to the appellant, Yvonne D'Arcy. She was awarded the right to appeal to the High Court of Australia, who handed their judgment down only last month.

Although the case has been discussed on this blog before, some exposition is needed for those who might not be wholly familiar with the matter. The case of D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics dealt with the protein BRCA1; one that is quite relevant as a marker for a potential heightened risk for breast and ovarian cancer should it possess a mutation within it. Myriad Genetics acquired a patent for the sequence's isolation and subsequent analysis (Australian patent no. 686004), which was challenged by Yvonne D'Arcy, a cancer patient herself, in 2013.

What the High Court had to consider was whether the patent can be defined as a 'manner of manufacture' under the Statute of Monopolies 1623; a requirement for patentability under the Australian Patents Act 1990.

Genes are not that important

In a lengthy, multi-opinion decision, the High Court unanimously decided that the disputed claims of the patent were not a 'manner of manufacture', and thus were not patentable. Discussing the science and precedent, the majority still focused on the substance of the patent in in-depth detail. What Myriad Genetics argued, and the preceding judges agreed with, was that the isolation of the genetic sequence, and its analysis, created an artificial state of affairs, changing what is in simplistic terms a natural phenomenon into a man-made substance falling under the definition of a 'manner of manufacture'. The majority disagreed, and saw that "...the information stored in the sequence of nucleotides coding for the mutated or polymorphic BRCA1 polypeptide is the same information as that contained in the DNA of the person from which the nucleic acid was isolated. It is the existence of that information which is an essential element of the invention as claimed. The product is the medium in which that information resides". In the majority's view the isolation of the genetic content retains the very same information as occurs naturally within that person, adding or 'making' nothing new. Myriad Genetics' claims honed on the information within the genetic sequence, and not the chemical changes made to it when isolating, falling foul of a 'manner of manufacture' as a result, attempting to claim what already exists through nature (echoing, and accepting, the position by the US Supreme Court, more on which can be found here).

Ultimately what befell Myriad Genetics' case was the language used in the patent's claims, as stated by the majority: "Although it may be said in a formal sense that the invention as claimed, referring to isolated nucleic acids, embodies a product created by human action, that is not sufficient to support its characterisation as a manner of manufacture. The substance of the invention as claimed and the considerations flowing from its substance militate against that characterisation". As such the High Court allowed the appeal by Ms. D'Arcy.

The complexity and uncertainty around the case is evidenced by the length and multitude of opinions, and even though the decision was unanimous in allowing the appeal, the opinions reflect different approaches in arriving in the same answer. To this writer the focus seems to be very language specific, and had Myriad Genetics differentiated their claims through more specific, composition-heavy language, they could have been successful. Nevertheless, the case was more of a point of principle, as the patent expired only a few months ago, but it does set a precedent for the genetics industry in Australia. The Australian government has given guidance on proper practice in relation to genetic materials and patents, which looks gloomy for the industry, but the consultation does allow for comments and thoughts going forward.

Source: ABC Online 

Impulsive Decisions - Reputation of a Trademark in Europe

In the world of trademarks the goodwill, or in other words reputation, of goods and services is paramount for their protection and enjoyment in a relevant territory. As commerce has become more and more global, with other territories seeing goods or services after their introduction to others, jurisdictional issues are even more poignant and relevant, providing a judicial headache for many attempting to benefit from those limitations (for example, in the recent NOW TV case, discussed here). Community Trade Marks, or CTMs for short, are registered as European-wide trademarks, but the goods or services' introduction to all of the Member States can sometimes differ, and potentially leave their registration open to challenge. Could, however, a proprietor prove goodwill in a Member State through use in other Member States, without actually having a commercial presence for that item in the Member State in question? Luckily, the European Court of Justice answered this question over a month ago.

The case of Iron & Smith v Unilever dealt with a national application for the mark "be Impulsive" in Hungary, lodged by Iron & Smith. The application was challenged by Unilever on he basis of their earlier mark "IMPULSE" (CTM 3116233); however they failed to demonstrate goodwill in Hungary, although Unilever had done so, arguably at least, in the UK and Italy.

The Court was asked four questions, the first three of which were distilled down by the Court as "...what conditions, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are to be met in order for a Community mark to be regarded as having a reputation in the European Union, pursuant to Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95".

Extending beyond one's limitations can be a good thing

After a brief consideration of precedent relating to goodwill the Court quickly saw that "...if the reputation of an earlier Community mark is established in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, which may, in some circumstances, coincide with the territory of a single Member State, which does not have to be the State in which the application for the later national mark was filed, it must be held that that mark has a reputation in the European Union". What this means is that you don't have to prove reputation all over Europe, but only in a substantial part of it (how ever that might be defined), in order to establish reputation in any Member State. This is a curious finding, as not all nationals of all Member States are aware of goods or services elsewhere in the Union, and effectively creates goodwill in those that have not, and might never, see those goods or services.

The final remaining question for the Court was also put in very succinct terms: "...in what circumstances Article 4(3)... is applicable if the earlier Community trade mark has already acquired a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, but not with the relevant public in the Member State in which the registration of the later national mark concerned by the opposition has been applied for".

The Court, again, briefly considered earlier decisions, and concluded that "...if the earlier Community trade mark has already acquired a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, but not with the relevant public in the Member State in which registration of the later national mark concerned by the opposition has been applied for, the proprietor of the Community trade mark may benefit from the protection introduced by Article 4(3)... where it is shown that a commercially significant part of that public is familiar with that mark, makes a connection between it and the later national mark, and that there is, taking account of all the relevant factors in the case, either actual and present injury to its mark, for the purposes of that provision or, failing that, a serious risk that such injury may occur in the future". The answer relates heavily to the above, as if goodwill is proved in a significant part of the Union, it is possible to rely on a CTM to invalidate a national mark, provided there is actual or potential damage to the CTM or its owner if the national mark were to be registered.

Overall the decision of the Court seems odd, effectively creating goodwill where none have existed in evidential terms, but aligns itself with earlier precedent. To prove goodwill or reputation in any European Member State one only has to prove it in a 'significant' portion of the European Union, which, to this writer's mind, expands the remit of an unused CTM beyond that for which it is intended (even if the mark is registered in the whole of Europe). Although the Court's rationale aligns itself with earlier decisions, it seems to give rights where no rights existed, potentially even hindering legitimate competition. Nevertheless, this writer will not purport himself to know better than the judges at the Court, but is puzzled by this outcome nonetheless.

Source: IPKat