Having discussed the recent opinion by Advocate General Szpunar in relation to copyright and sampling, the CJEU's decision has been very hotly anticipated, particularly by the music industry. Sampling has become incredibly common in the creation and production of music, and so the potential curtailing of sampling by the CJEU could pose a big problem to artists, producers and labels. Luckily (or unluckily) the CJEU has finally handed down its judgment very recently.
As a short primer, the case of Pelham GmbH v Ralf Hütter and Florian Schneider‑Esleben concerned the song "Metall auf Metall" created by the band Kraftwerk, which comprises of the respondents Hütter and Schneider‑Esleben. The song was sampled in another song called "Nur Mir", which was produced by Pelham in the late 1990s. Kraftwerk allege that Pelham sampled a two-second rhythm sequence from their song, and used it as a continuous loop in "Nur Mir", therefore infringing their copyright. Pelham contested the infringement allegation, and the case then ended up in the CJEU some years later.
The referring court asked the CJEU six questions, which the Court dealt with (mainly) in turn.
The first and sixth questions were dealt with by the CJEU together, which essentially asked "...whether Article 2(c) of Directive 2001/29 must, in the light of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right granted to a phonogram producer to reproduce and distribute his or her phonogram allows him to prevent another person from taking a sound sample, even if very short, of his or her phonogram for the purposes of including that sample in another phonogram".
The Court opened with setting the scene, in that the copying of a sound sample, even if very short, must be regarded as a reproduction ‘in part’ of that phonogram within the meaning of the Article. Even so, if a user is exercising their freedom of the arts to create a new, distinguishable phonogram work, that particular use wouldn't be classed as a 'reproduction' under the Article. The Court noted that a balance has to be struck between the rights afforded by copyright, and the rights under the Charter.
Having considered the questions, the Court determined that "…Article 2(c)… must, in the light of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that the phonogram producer’s exclusive right under that provision to reproduce and distribute his or her phonogram allows him or her to prevent another person from taking a sound sample, even if very short, of his or her phonogram for the purposes of including that sample in another phonogram, unless that sample is included in the phonogram in a modified form unrecognisable to the ear". In short, an artist would have to utilize a short clip of music in more ways than simply copying it in and the work has to be unrecognizable when compared to the original.
The Court then moved onto the second question, which asked "…whether Article 9(1)(b) of Directive 2006/115 must be interpreted as meaning that a phonogram which contains sound samples transferred from another phonogram constitutes a ‘copy’, within the meaning of that provision, of that phonogram". The Article affords the owner of the rights in a phonogram the right to distribute copies of the work.
Having discussed the legislative backdrop of the provision quite extensively, the Court considered that samples transferred from another phonogram would be a 'copy' under the provision, as they are a 'duplicate' of the part of the work, since the samples contain sounds taken directly or indirectly from a phonogram.
The Court then considered the third question, which asked "…whether a Member State may, in its national law, lay down an exception or limitation, other than those provided for in Article 5 of Directive 2001/29, to the phonogram producer’s right provided for in Article 2(c) of Directive 2001/29" – or in other words, can additional exceptions be provided to the rights afforded to rightsholders in relation to phonograms.
The matter yet again circled around the balancing of interests in terms of the rights in works, and exceptions to those rights allowing for the use of works in specific circumstances (so long as it doesn't conflict with the normal exploitation of a work). The Court answered the question in the negative, considering that Member States cannot lay down additional exceptions outside of Article 5.
The fourth question concerned "…whether Article 5(3)(d) of [Directive 2001/29] must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘quotations'… extends to a situation in which it is not possible to identify the work concerned by the quotation in question".
The Court first focussed on the requirements for quotation, which has to be made "in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific purpose", meaning you can't simply copy a work and claim it as a quotation of that work if it exceeds the requirements and purpose of a given quotation. Also, the Court noted that the meaning of 'quotation' is the use of a copyright protected work to "….illustrat[e] an assertion, of defending an opinion or of allowing an intellectual comparison between that work and the assertions of that user", which is typically done through a 'dialogue' with that work.
A key consideration on quotation is that the work needs to be identifiable, which, in sampling, might not be as easy. Without the identification of the sample, it isn't strictly possible to have a 'dialogue' with the work as a part of the quotation. The Court therefore set out that "…the concept of ‘quotations’… does not extend to a situation in which it is not possible to identify the work concerned by the quotation in question". It is a case-by-case question, in terms of sampling, when the copying can be considered as a quotation within the provision.
Finally, the Court dealt with the fifth question, which concerned "…whether Article 2(c) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as constituting measures of full harmonisation".
The Court emphasised that EU law takes precedent over national law, even if it concerns a Member State's constitution, and any national measures shouldn't undermine the effectiveness of the EU in its territory. That also means that EU legislation would have to be transposed into national legislation irrespective of their discretion. The Court therefore concluded that "…Article 2(c)… must be interpreted as constituting a measure of full harmonisation of the corresponding substantive law".
The decision is a big one, and potentially is a big blow to the music industry, but has shown more clarity in the area of quotation. The courts will undoubtedly grapple with this decision in the coming years, particularly due to the nature of whether a sample can be recognized within a different song where it is copied. This writer agrees with the Court, but will wait to see whether, or if at all, the decision will have an impact on the music industry.
13 August, 2019
23 July, 2019
I'm Offended! - Advocate General Bobeck Opines on When a TM is Contrary to Morality or Public Policy
Morality seems to be the topic of the day on this blog, having recently written about the US Supreme Court case relating to the registration of immoral trademarks. While this writer will is not by any means the 'morality police', it is an important topic to discuss, albeit unusually so in connection with intellectual property. Similarly to US legislation, many other jurisdictions prevent the registration of trademarks that contravenes morality, including in Europe. In the light of this, what makes a trademark contrary to morality, and when can the courts reject those marks? Luckily the CJEU is facing this very question, and Advocate General Bobeck gave his take on the matter very recently.
The case of Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v EUIPO concerned the registration of the name "Fack Ju Göhte" (EUTM 13971163) by the film company, which is a very successful German comedy. The company, naturally, wanted to register the mark due to this success, but the application was rejected by the EUIPO due to it being contrary to "accepted principles of morality". Constantin then appealed the rejection, which ended up going all the way to the CJEU.
A trademark application can be rejected under Article 7(1)(f) of the CTM Regulation if it is "...contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality". The Advocate General therefore had to opine on when a trade mark application is contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality, and what the relevant test is in determining that.
The first thing considered by the AG was the relationship between trademarks and the freedom of expression. The AG set out that, even though the registration of trademarks is a commercial activity by nature, it by no means limits the applicability of the freedom of expression to trademarks, and is further codified by the Regulation as a part of trademark law. He further set out that "…although freedom of expression, as well as other fundamental rights potentially at stake, must be taken into account in the overall balancing exercise, the protection of freedom of expression is not the primary goal of trade mark protection". One can agree with this, since trademarks, while clearly an important expression of a particular brand, are primarily focused on showcasing the quality of a product and ensuring its origin to the consumer; not to make statements for the sake of it.
The AG then moved onto consider the relationship between public policy and accepted principles of morality. In practice, the terms have been considered both interchangeably and separately, which leaves the option open for the CJEU to determine how exactly they should be considered.
In defining public policy, the AG set out that it means "…a normative vision of values and goals, defined by the relevant public authority, to be pursued now and in the future", i.e. the legislature's attempt to solidify the normative values of society at that time. Accepted principles of morality, however, are "…values and convictions currently adhered to by a given society, set and enforced by the prevailing social consensus within that society at a given time", which contrasts as a less guided sense of what is right, but how society at large feels about issues. The distinction therefore is a top-down v bottom-up approach to public morality, with the former being a more objective measure, and the latter a subjective one.
When relying on either one of the above grounds, the AG considered that the EUIPO must therefore establish, with references to the prevailing perception among the relevant public, why they believe that a given sign would offend those principles.
The AG considered that the public relevant to the matter at hand would be a general and German-speaking one, and that any public policy or morality considerations would have to be made in the light of that fact. Vulgarity in one language, here English, would not therefore necessarily be considered such by non-English speakers. Additionally, any assessment by the EUIPO cannot be made solely and exclusively looking at the word sign, in isolation from the broader societal perception and context, if any evidence for such exists.
In this matter the name "Fack Ju Göhte" was fully authorized to screen with the name by the German authorities with no age restrictions. They clearly therefore considered the name to not be vulgar; contrary to the findings of the EUIPO. This national context is important, which should be taken into account by the EUIPO. If the EUIPO wants to depart from this the standard of proof is raised, and in this case they failed to prove otherwise. The first ground of appeal consequently failed according to the AG.
The AG also criticized the EUIPO for a lack of consistency in its decision-making, and for failing to explain why this application's outcome was different to previous decisions (including in Die Wanderhure).
The opinion is very thorough and convincing, and it is very likely that the CJEU will follow the AG's well-reasoned view on the matter. Any rejections by the EUIPO over a contravention of morality should be consistent in their approach, and the CJEU's clarification will hopefully bring them to this outcome. This writer will wait for the CJEU's ultimate decision patiently.
The case of Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v EUIPO concerned the registration of the name "Fack Ju Göhte" (EUTM 13971163) by the film company, which is a very successful German comedy. The company, naturally, wanted to register the mark due to this success, but the application was rejected by the EUIPO due to it being contrary to "accepted principles of morality". Constantin then appealed the rejection, which ended up going all the way to the CJEU.
A trademark application can be rejected under Article 7(1)(f) of the CTM Regulation if it is "...contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality". The Advocate General therefore had to opine on when a trade mark application is contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality, and what the relevant test is in determining that.
The first thing considered by the AG was the relationship between trademarks and the freedom of expression. The AG set out that, even though the registration of trademarks is a commercial activity by nature, it by no means limits the applicability of the freedom of expression to trademarks, and is further codified by the Regulation as a part of trademark law. He further set out that "…although freedom of expression, as well as other fundamental rights potentially at stake, must be taken into account in the overall balancing exercise, the protection of freedom of expression is not the primary goal of trade mark protection". One can agree with this, since trademarks, while clearly an important expression of a particular brand, are primarily focused on showcasing the quality of a product and ensuring its origin to the consumer; not to make statements for the sake of it.
The AG then moved onto consider the relationship between public policy and accepted principles of morality. In practice, the terms have been considered both interchangeably and separately, which leaves the option open for the CJEU to determine how exactly they should be considered.
In defining public policy, the AG set out that it means "…a normative vision of values and goals, defined by the relevant public authority, to be pursued now and in the future", i.e. the legislature's attempt to solidify the normative values of society at that time. Accepted principles of morality, however, are "…values and convictions currently adhered to by a given society, set and enforced by the prevailing social consensus within that society at a given time", which contrasts as a less guided sense of what is right, but how society at large feels about issues. The distinction therefore is a top-down v bottom-up approach to public morality, with the former being a more objective measure, and the latter a subjective one.
When relying on either one of the above grounds, the AG considered that the EUIPO must therefore establish, with references to the prevailing perception among the relevant public, why they believe that a given sign would offend those principles.
The AG considered that the public relevant to the matter at hand would be a general and German-speaking one, and that any public policy or morality considerations would have to be made in the light of that fact. Vulgarity in one language, here English, would not therefore necessarily be considered such by non-English speakers. Additionally, any assessment by the EUIPO cannot be made solely and exclusively looking at the word sign, in isolation from the broader societal perception and context, if any evidence for such exists.
In this matter the name "Fack Ju Göhte" was fully authorized to screen with the name by the German authorities with no age restrictions. They clearly therefore considered the name to not be vulgar; contrary to the findings of the EUIPO. This national context is important, which should be taken into account by the EUIPO. If the EUIPO wants to depart from this the standard of proof is raised, and in this case they failed to prove otherwise. The first ground of appeal consequently failed according to the AG.
The AG also criticized the EUIPO for a lack of consistency in its decision-making, and for failing to explain why this application's outcome was different to previous decisions (including in Die Wanderhure).
The opinion is very thorough and convincing, and it is very likely that the CJEU will follow the AG's well-reasoned view on the matter. Any rejections by the EUIPO over a contravention of morality should be consistent in their approach, and the CJEU's clarification will hopefully bring them to this outcome. This writer will wait for the CJEU's ultimate decision patiently.
16 July, 2019
That's Just Offensive - US Supreme Court Allows for the Registration of 'Immoral' Trademarks
The notion of morality is deeply embedded in human society, coloring most facets of it in some ways. Whether it is laws prohibiting deplorable actions, or simply stopping you from saying hateful things (in some jurisdictions), morality is an important part of the legislative framework. In the world of IP you rarely deal with issues of morality, but sometimes they do crop up. In the last few years, the registration of 'disparaging' trademarks has been a hot topic in the US (discussed more here and here), but what about marks that one could class as immoral? The Supreme Court were therefore tasked with deciding this part of trademark law, and handed down their judgment very recently.
The case of Iancu v Brunetti concerned an application to register the mark "FUCT", which was the brand of Mr Brunetti's clothing line. Under examination by the USPTO, the application was rejected due to it being immoral due to vulgarity under 15 USC 1052(a). Mr Brunetti subsequently appealed the decision, arguing that it infringes on his First Amendment right to free speech, with the case ultimately landing on the Supreme Court's desk.
As decided in the Tam case, preventing the registration of 'disparaging' trademarks violated the First Amendment as it "...discriminate[d] against ideas that offend". The grounds for rejecting trademarks that are 'immoral' falls within the same provision of US legislation as rejecting the registration of 'disparaging' ones.
Justice Kagan, handing down the majority's judgment, swiftly determined that the provision similarly violates the First Amendment. The Government argued that the prohibition was a viewpoint-neutral one, and would only be restricted to certain kinds of immorality, therefore being somewhat restricted. The Court didn't buy this argument, and saw that "...It covers the universe of immoral or scandalous—or (to use some PTO synonyms) offensive or disreputable—material". This means that almost anything that fits that criteria could therefore be rejected by the USPTO.
The Court honed matters down further, noting that the provision aims to suppress certain views, albeit 'immoral' ones, and would violate free speech., even if allegedly captured through the use of "viewpoint-neutral" legislative language.
Justice Kagan wrapped matters up by drawing a line in the sand: "There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all. It therefore violates the First Amendment".
While most Supreme Court decisions are incredibly important, the decision in this case is in no way revolutionary. The Court has clearly put an end to the limitation on registering negative trademarks, no matter how offensive or immoral. Applicants can therefore rejoice over the possibility to go ham on registering ever-more offensive marks to their hearts' content...
The case of Iancu v Brunetti concerned an application to register the mark "FUCT", which was the brand of Mr Brunetti's clothing line. Under examination by the USPTO, the application was rejected due to it being immoral due to vulgarity under 15 USC 1052(a). Mr Brunetti subsequently appealed the decision, arguing that it infringes on his First Amendment right to free speech, with the case ultimately landing on the Supreme Court's desk.
As decided in the Tam case, preventing the registration of 'disparaging' trademarks violated the First Amendment as it "...discriminate[d] against ideas that offend". The grounds for rejecting trademarks that are 'immoral' falls within the same provision of US legislation as rejecting the registration of 'disparaging' ones.
Justice Kagan, handing down the majority's judgment, swiftly determined that the provision similarly violates the First Amendment. The Government argued that the prohibition was a viewpoint-neutral one, and would only be restricted to certain kinds of immorality, therefore being somewhat restricted. The Court didn't buy this argument, and saw that "...It covers the universe of immoral or scandalous—or (to use some PTO synonyms) offensive or disreputable—material". This means that almost anything that fits that criteria could therefore be rejected by the USPTO.
The Court honed matters down further, noting that the provision aims to suppress certain views, albeit 'immoral' ones, and would violate free speech., even if allegedly captured through the use of "viewpoint-neutral" legislative language.
Justice Kagan wrapped matters up by drawing a line in the sand: "There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all. It therefore violates the First Amendment".
While most Supreme Court decisions are incredibly important, the decision in this case is in no way revolutionary. The Court has clearly put an end to the limitation on registering negative trademarks, no matter how offensive or immoral. Applicants can therefore rejoice over the possibility to go ham on registering ever-more offensive marks to their hearts' content...
09 July, 2019
Walking the Dotted Line - CJEU Decides on what Dotted Lines mean in Trademark Applications
The Devil is often in the details, especially when applying to register trademarks and/or patents. Sometimes the smallest of 'mistakes' or strategic choices could lead to the revocation or devaluation of your IP, so it is important to be sure you have set out the exact parameters in the best way possible to avoid potential issues. One such matter is how trademarks are presented in graphical form, including dotted lines (the Trunki case being a good example of when the illustration of a mark really mattered). With this in mind, how does the inclusion of dotted lines in trademark applications impact the mark, and can they be excluded as being simply illustrative?
The case of Deichmann SE v EUIPO concerned the registration of a trademark involving a cross design on the side of a shoe, where the shoe itself was marked using dotted lines to illustrate the position of the mark (EUTM 2923852). Infringement proceedings involving the mark were initiated by Deichmann 6 years after the registration of the mark, and the other party, Munich SL, counterclaimed for revocation and invalidity. The matter then ultimately ended with the CJEU for determination.
The crux of the matter is whether the mark can be revoked under Article 51 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation for a lack of genuine use in the EU. What the Court also had to consider was whether the mark was a figurative or a position mark, and whether that was an irrelevant fact for the determination of genuine use.
The Court considered that "…it [is] irrelevant whether the mark at issue should be regarded as a position mark or a figurative mark". The General Court had previously determined that the mark was a figurative mark at the same time as being a position mark – which the Court agreed with. They further noted that "…‘position marks’ are similar to the categories of figurative and three-dimensional marks as they related to the application of three-dimensional elements to the surface of a product", and the distinction between a figurative and a position mark in the light of distinctiveness is irrelevant.
Similarly it was irrelevant to the assessment of genuine use. The Court emphasised that the acquisition of genuine use is analogous to that of distinctiveness, therefore rendering the distinction between a figurative and a position mark unnecessary for genuine use.
The Court then looked at the mark itself, which they saw consisted of "…broken or ‘dotted’ lines, which represent the appearance of the product covered by that mark, and two solid lines, representing an affixed cross". The dotted line therefore clearly denotes the location of the mark itself, rather than forming a part of the mark, i.e. making it a position mark.
The mark had been registered as a figurative mark, and even though the above sets it out as a position mark, this ultimately does not matter in the light of the mark's registration.
The case is by no means revolutionary, but does draw a line in the law in the light of dotted lines. Most of the time common sense prevails, and applicants can let out a sigh of relief in their world of dotted outlines.
The case of Deichmann SE v EUIPO concerned the registration of a trademark involving a cross design on the side of a shoe, where the shoe itself was marked using dotted lines to illustrate the position of the mark (EUTM 2923852). Infringement proceedings involving the mark were initiated by Deichmann 6 years after the registration of the mark, and the other party, Munich SL, counterclaimed for revocation and invalidity. The matter then ultimately ended with the CJEU for determination.
The crux of the matter is whether the mark can be revoked under Article 51 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation for a lack of genuine use in the EU. What the Court also had to consider was whether the mark was a figurative or a position mark, and whether that was an irrelevant fact for the determination of genuine use.
 |
| Does it really count if I signed on a dotted line? |
Similarly it was irrelevant to the assessment of genuine use. The Court emphasised that the acquisition of genuine use is analogous to that of distinctiveness, therefore rendering the distinction between a figurative and a position mark unnecessary for genuine use.
The Court then looked at the mark itself, which they saw consisted of "…broken or ‘dotted’ lines, which represent the appearance of the product covered by that mark, and two solid lines, representing an affixed cross". The dotted line therefore clearly denotes the location of the mark itself, rather than forming a part of the mark, i.e. making it a position mark.
The mark had been registered as a figurative mark, and even though the above sets it out as a position mark, this ultimately does not matter in the light of the mark's registration.
The case is by no means revolutionary, but does draw a line in the law in the light of dotted lines. Most of the time common sense prevails, and applicants can let out a sigh of relief in their world of dotted outlines.
11 June, 2019
We All Knew That - UK Supreme Court Rules on Patent Obviousness
Patents afford great protection for inventions, but have high threshold in order to ensure that few patents that disclose nothing new are issued. AS one can imagine from common sense, anything that is patented needs to not be obvious, as this would allow for the protection of something that lacks sufficient invention to merit protection. After all, if it is obvious, how can you claim you've invented or found it? Even with this is mind, what makes a patent 'obvious'? In a long awaited decision by the UK Supreme Court, the matter was (finally) put to bed, at least in the UK.
The case of Actavis Group PTC EHF v ICOS Corporation concerned a dosage patent owned by ICOS (EP1173181), which related to the use of tadalafil (more commonly known as Cialis) in a dosage form for the treatment of sexual dysfunction. The patent was exclusively licenced to Eli Lilly. Actavis initiated proceedings to revoke the patent, arguing that it was obvious (among other points), with the matter ultimately ending up with the Supreme Court.
The main point of contention in the case is section 3 of the Patents Act 1977, which sets out that "…an invention shall be taken to involve an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, having regard to any matter which forms part of the state of the art". Put differently, an inventive step (a necessary component for being able to patent something) cannot include something that is 'obvious' to a person skilled in the art, having considered anything that forms the state of the art in which they are skilled in.
Typically the courts follow two tests on determining obviousness; (i) the Windsurfing/Pozzolli structure; and (ii) the EPO's problem-and-solution method.
The question of obviousness, as set out in Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc., concerns an undetermined set of factors in the light of all the relevant circumstances. These may include "…the motive to find a solution to the problem the patent addresses, the number and extent of the possible avenues of research, the effort involved in pursuing them and the expectation of success".
Lord Hodge then set out a number of factors that he considered were relevant to the case at hand. Without diving deeply into each one of them (totaling at nine different factors), they included:
The case of Actavis Group PTC EHF v ICOS Corporation concerned a dosage patent owned by ICOS (EP1173181), which related to the use of tadalafil (more commonly known as Cialis) in a dosage form for the treatment of sexual dysfunction. The patent was exclusively licenced to Eli Lilly. Actavis initiated proceedings to revoke the patent, arguing that it was obvious (among other points), with the matter ultimately ending up with the Supreme Court.
The main point of contention in the case is section 3 of the Patents Act 1977, which sets out that "…an invention shall be taken to involve an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, having regard to any matter which forms part of the state of the art". Put differently, an inventive step (a necessary component for being able to patent something) cannot include something that is 'obvious' to a person skilled in the art, having considered anything that forms the state of the art in which they are skilled in.
Typically the courts follow two tests on determining obviousness; (i) the Windsurfing/Pozzolli structure; and (ii) the EPO's problem-and-solution method.
The question of obviousness, as set out in Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc., concerns an undetermined set of factors in the light of all the relevant circumstances. These may include "…the motive to find a solution to the problem the patent addresses, the number and extent of the possible avenues of research, the effort involved in pursuing them and the expectation of success".
Lord Hodge then set out a number of factors that he considered were relevant to the case at hand. Without diving deeply into each one of them (totaling at nine different factors), they included:
- whether it was obvious to undertake a specific piece of research, at the priority date, which had a reasonable or fair prospect of success;
- the routine nature of the research and any established practice of following such research through to a particular point;
- the burden and cost of the research programme; and
- the necessity for and the nature of the value judgments which the skilled team would have in the course of a testing programme.
Additionally, as the patent concerned is a dosage patent for the drug, one has to also take into consideration whether the specific dosage is indeed obvious.
The Court finally moved onto consider whether the patent in question was obvious. This began with the acknowledgement that it was obvious for the skilled team to pursue the pre-clinical and clinical research in order to implement the patent. The target for the research was also indeed to identify the appropriate dosage regime for tadalafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. The dosages tested would have included doses that were as low as described in the patent. This would, contrary to the decision at first instance, point to the patent being obvious more than not.
Clearly, as discussed by the Court, the approach to finding the correct dose would've been a 'no brainer' for the relevant skilled experts, and the patent was determined to be obvious. This was not contradicted even if following the EPO's problem-and-solution method.
In short, the Court found that "…the Court of Appeal was entitled to interfere with the trial judge’s assessment of obviousness and to hold that the… patent was invalid for lacking an inventive step".
The decision took a long hard look at the tests surrounding obviousness, and will clearly help further assessments of the same question in the future. The decision does also allow for the acceptance of routine or well-established inquiry as patentable subject matter, even if in this instance the dosage was obvious.
Clearly, as discussed by the Court, the approach to finding the correct dose would've been a 'no brainer' for the relevant skilled experts, and the patent was determined to be obvious. This was not contradicted even if following the EPO's problem-and-solution method.
In short, the Court found that "…the Court of Appeal was entitled to interfere with the trial judge’s assessment of obviousness and to hold that the… patent was invalid for lacking an inventive step".
The decision took a long hard look at the tests surrounding obviousness, and will clearly help further assessments of the same question in the future. The decision does also allow for the acceptance of routine or well-established inquiry as patentable subject matter, even if in this instance the dosage was obvious.
04 June, 2019
It Ends Now - US Supreme Court Decides on Trademark Licence Expiry on Bankruptcy
An often overlooked facet of business is the aftermath of bankruptcy, particularly in commercial arrangements that don't directly involve a debt to the solvent third party. An example of such an arrangement is trademark licencing, where the party licensing a trademark merely enjoys the benefit of using the mark, and does not have any monies owed to them through the use of the mark (to put things very simply by way of example). One question that hasn't been fully answered in the US is what happens to the licence after the licensor goes bankrupt. The Court of Appeals has been torn on the issue of whether the company going bankrupt can effectively cancel the licence, which has now been looked at by the Supreme Court, who handed their decision in late May.
The case of Mission Product Holdings Inc. v Tempnology LLC concerned the brand "Coolcore", which was owned by Tempnology. The mark had been licenced to Mission in the US and worldwide and also exclusively allowed them to distribute certain Coolcore products in the US. Tempnology filed for bankruptcy during the licence term, and subsequently requested the 'rejection' (i.e. revocation) of the licence through the US Bankruptcy Court. Mission challenged the rejection of the licence, with the matter ultimately ending up with the Supreme Court.
Under section 365(a) of the US Bankruptcy Code the debtor gives a debtor the option, subject to court approval, to "assume or reject any executory contract", i.e. a contract that neither party has finished performing prior to the bankruptcy proceedings. Any rejection of a contract under the provision is an immediate breach of that agreement under contract law, giving the other party the possible route of seeking damages as a result of that breach.
In considering the actual meaning of the provision, the Court set out that the section is there to preserve the rights owned by the company before bankruptcy in bankruptcy, and similarly cannot expand on those rights in the same vein. Any trustee in bankruptcy would, therefore, retain those rights and obligations even once bankruptcy proceedings have begun. The Court continued that "…If trustees (or debtors) could use rejection to rescind previously granted interests, then rejection would become functionally equivalent to avoidance… [and] would roll back a prior transfer". The Court was therefore very careful in protecting granted rights, even in the event of bankruptcy.
The Court also rejected Tempnology's argument that, due to exceptions being present in section 365 (providing for protection after 'rejection' to specific parties), that all other parties would therefore not be protected in the same way, including trademark licensees.
Ultimately, the Court therefore held that, under section 365(a), a rejection of a trademark licence under the provision would amount to a breach of contract, and therefore the company cannot rescind that the contract previously granted.
The decision gives needed clarity due to a split in the Court of Appeals Circuits, but does raise further uncertainties that will need to be answered in the future. This writer understands that those would include the scope of non-debtor parties' post-rejection rights under law outside of bankruptcy. In any event, the decision will have a big impact on any bankruptcy proceedings, and companies will have to take heed if any bankruptcy involves trademark licences.
The case of Mission Product Holdings Inc. v Tempnology LLC concerned the brand "Coolcore", which was owned by Tempnology. The mark had been licenced to Mission in the US and worldwide and also exclusively allowed them to distribute certain Coolcore products in the US. Tempnology filed for bankruptcy during the licence term, and subsequently requested the 'rejection' (i.e. revocation) of the licence through the US Bankruptcy Court. Mission challenged the rejection of the licence, with the matter ultimately ending up with the Supreme Court.
Under section 365(a) of the US Bankruptcy Code the debtor gives a debtor the option, subject to court approval, to "assume or reject any executory contract", i.e. a contract that neither party has finished performing prior to the bankruptcy proceedings. Any rejection of a contract under the provision is an immediate breach of that agreement under contract law, giving the other party the possible route of seeking damages as a result of that breach.
 |
| Michael's strategy was no longer a desirable option |
The Court also rejected Tempnology's argument that, due to exceptions being present in section 365 (providing for protection after 'rejection' to specific parties), that all other parties would therefore not be protected in the same way, including trademark licensees.
Ultimately, the Court therefore held that, under section 365(a), a rejection of a trademark licence under the provision would amount to a breach of contract, and therefore the company cannot rescind that the contract previously granted.
The decision gives needed clarity due to a split in the Court of Appeals Circuits, but does raise further uncertainties that will need to be answered in the future. This writer understands that those would include the scope of non-debtor parties' post-rejection rights under law outside of bankruptcy. In any event, the decision will have a big impact on any bankruptcy proceedings, and companies will have to take heed if any bankruptcy involves trademark licences.
09 May, 2019
It's all the Same - US Court of Appeals Considers When a Trademark is Generic
Having a well-known brand along with an innovative product can be a cruel mistress to many companies. As your product becomes the market leader, and your brand 'the brand' within that category, there is a risk that your trademark can come under threat of becoming generic. This writer for one has caught himself many times asking someone to "Google" something (found to not be a generic term) or referring to sticky bandages as "Band-Aids" - both of which are examples of misusing a trademark and illustrate the perils of becoming 'the brand'. This issue is rarely litigated extensively in the courts, but a recent case in the US Court of Appeals took it on again and giving us yet more insight into how the courts determine if a trademark is generic or not.
The case of Booking.com BV v USPTO concerned applications by Booking.com to register the name "BOOKING.COM" in a few variations. The marks were initially rejected by both the USPTO and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which considered that the mark was generic as applied to the relevant services, finally succeeding with the District Court. The matter was ultimately appealed to the Court of Appeals, who was tasked with determining whether the mark is generic or not.
In terms of provenance of whether a mark is generic or not, according to the Court, the onus lies on the USPTO to prove this is indeed the case.
The Court then moved onto setting out the test to determine whether a mark is generic or not. The test consists of three factors: (i) identify the class of product or service to which use of the mark is relevant; (ii) identify the relevant consuming public; and (iii) determine whether the primary significance of the mark to the relevant public is as an indication of the nature of the class of the product or services to which the mark relates, which suggests that it is generic, or an indication of the source or brand, which suggests that it is not generic. Once a mark has been deemed to be generic, it cannot become distinctive.
Both parties agreed that, in relation to the first and second steps, the mark is used to identify the class or product to which it belongs (i.e. making hotel reservations for others) and the relevant purchasing public consists of consumers who use hotel reservation services offered via the internet or in person. What remains at issue is the third step, i.e. "…the public's understanding of what the term BOOKING.COM primarily refers to".
In considering the public's understanding of a term the courts may look at "…purchaser testimony, consumer surveys, listings and dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers, and other publications". To ascertain whether the same term is understood to primarily refer to the service or the source the Courts consider the proposed mark as a whole.
The Court subsequently had to consider whether the USPTO's evidence that the public use "booking.com" generically, and whether the inclusion of a top-level domain to a generic second-level domain 'booking' means the mark is necessarily generic.
The USPTO failed to show in their evidence that the mark had become generic. Even though other domain names featured the term 'booking', these alone didn't make the mark generic since the term 'booking' is used to book a multitude of things, not just hotels. Consumers, therefore, wouldn't necessarily understand the mark to automatically mean the provision of hotel booking services. Booking.com's consumer survey also indicated that over 70% of consumers identified the mark as meaning the company, and not just any booking service for hotels. The mark was descriptive, and not generic. The Court of Appeals, therefore, rejected the USPTO's first argument.
The USPTO then argued that the addition of the second-level domain ".com" meant that the mark was necessarily generic.
The Court followed by expanding on its considerations of compound marks, like Booking.com. This focusses on how the public perceives the mark as a whole, not simply as a collation of separate constituent parts. Leading from this the Court noted that the addition of ".com" doesn't in itself make a mark generic, as the public's perception would have to be considered in the light of the whole mark. Additionally, even though the mark describes the activity within the website "...it does not necessarily follow that the public commonly understands the mark to refer to the service broadly speaking". The Court, therefore, rejected the argument on the addition of ".com" making a mark generic.
The Court finally noted that, even though the mark does describe the activity of booking something via a website (specifically hotels), it doesn't prevent others from using the mark in a different context, e.g. booking a car rental or travel tickets.
The case does provide further discussion of an important facet of trademark law in the US, which isn't often touched upon by the courts. While the subject matter is somewhat established, it sets out in more detail the world of trademarks in an online environment, which is growing in importance as we become more and more entwined in an online marketplace.
The case of Booking.com BV v USPTO concerned applications by Booking.com to register the name "BOOKING.COM" in a few variations. The marks were initially rejected by both the USPTO and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which considered that the mark was generic as applied to the relevant services, finally succeeding with the District Court. The matter was ultimately appealed to the Court of Appeals, who was tasked with determining whether the mark is generic or not.
In terms of provenance of whether a mark is generic or not, according to the Court, the onus lies on the USPTO to prove this is indeed the case.
The Court then moved onto setting out the test to determine whether a mark is generic or not. The test consists of three factors: (i) identify the class of product or service to which use of the mark is relevant; (ii) identify the relevant consuming public; and (iii) determine whether the primary significance of the mark to the relevant public is as an indication of the nature of the class of the product or services to which the mark relates, which suggests that it is generic, or an indication of the source or brand, which suggests that it is not generic. Once a mark has been deemed to be generic, it cannot become distinctive.
Both parties agreed that, in relation to the first and second steps, the mark is used to identify the class or product to which it belongs (i.e. making hotel reservations for others) and the relevant purchasing public consists of consumers who use hotel reservation services offered via the internet or in person. What remains at issue is the third step, i.e. "…the public's understanding of what the term BOOKING.COM primarily refers to".
In considering the public's understanding of a term the courts may look at "…purchaser testimony, consumer surveys, listings and dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers, and other publications". To ascertain whether the same term is understood to primarily refer to the service or the source the Courts consider the proposed mark as a whole.
The Court subsequently had to consider whether the USPTO's evidence that the public use "booking.com" generically, and whether the inclusion of a top-level domain to a generic second-level domain 'booking' means the mark is necessarily generic.
The USPTO failed to show in their evidence that the mark had become generic. Even though other domain names featured the term 'booking', these alone didn't make the mark generic since the term 'booking' is used to book a multitude of things, not just hotels. Consumers, therefore, wouldn't necessarily understand the mark to automatically mean the provision of hotel booking services. Booking.com's consumer survey also indicated that over 70% of consumers identified the mark as meaning the company, and not just any booking service for hotels. The mark was descriptive, and not generic. The Court of Appeals, therefore, rejected the USPTO's first argument.
The USPTO then argued that the addition of the second-level domain ".com" meant that the mark was necessarily generic.
The Court followed by expanding on its considerations of compound marks, like Booking.com. This focusses on how the public perceives the mark as a whole, not simply as a collation of separate constituent parts. Leading from this the Court noted that the addition of ".com" doesn't in itself make a mark generic, as the public's perception would have to be considered in the light of the whole mark. Additionally, even though the mark describes the activity within the website "...it does not necessarily follow that the public commonly understands the mark to refer to the service broadly speaking". The Court, therefore, rejected the argument on the addition of ".com" making a mark generic.
The Court finally noted that, even though the mark does describe the activity of booking something via a website (specifically hotels), it doesn't prevent others from using the mark in a different context, e.g. booking a car rental or travel tickets.
The case does provide further discussion of an important facet of trademark law in the US, which isn't often touched upon by the courts. While the subject matter is somewhat established, it sets out in more detail the world of trademarks in an online environment, which is growing in importance as we become more and more entwined in an online marketplace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)