QMJIP

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property

Month: February, 2016

The new EU definition of Trade Mark: who let the smells out?

by Giancarlo Moretti

The new EU trade mark legislation has been offering a lot of grounds of discussion. Sometimes even inspired by an old piece of music.

The first surprise of the reform package leaps immediately out. Indeed, the first sensitive difference is provided by the new definition of trade mark, embedded in article 3 and article 4 respectively of the new Trade Mark Directive[1] and of the amended EU Trade Mark Regulation[2]. They read as follows:

A trade mark may consist of any signs, in particular words, including personal names, or designs, letters, numerals, colours, the shape of goods or of the packaging of goods, or sounds, provided that such signs are capable of:

(a) distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings; and

(b) being represented on the register in a manner which enables the competent authorities and the public to determine the clear and precise subject matter of the protection afforded to its proprietor.

The new definition of the trade mark notably differs from the one provided internationally by TRIPS and by the former legislation.

The substitution of the reference to graphic representation in letter b) is, without any doubt, one of the great novelties of the new legislation. Namely, it seems to be. Indeed, in its milestone decision Sieckman, the Court of Justice already specified that, in order to register a trade mark, a sign does not need to be visually perceived as long as its ‘representation is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective’ by redifining, to a certain extent, the classical canons of graphic rapresentation.[3] Under this term, it may be argued that the new definition just reflects the criteria already elaborated by the Court of Justice, which has provided clear guidelines as for defining a sign and registrability of unconventional marks.

The register representation, in any case, constitutes a relevant and innovative novelty in the new Trade Mark system. Nonetheless, one of the most debated issues, such as the registration of smell marks, remains still open. Indeed, according to the OHIM Guidelines[4] and to case-law, smell marks cannot be registered as their representation is not clear, precise and it is not objective.[5] As registration of fragrance should be represented only via a chemical formula or by the filing of samples, that, at the moment, is very unlikely to satisfy the requirements of clarity and precision stipulated the new provision.

Thus, it seems quite clear that currently smells are excluded from trade mark protection. Nevertheless, it might be interested to see if, in future, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO, the new name of OHIM from next 23 March) and the Court might reconsider the registrability of smell marks and fragrances in the light of the evolution of technology and of the new trade mark provisions.

[1] Directive 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks [2015] OJ L 336/1.

[2] Regulation 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) [2015] OJ L 341/21.

[3] Case C-273/00 Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt [2002] ECR I-11737 at 55.

[4] OHIM, Guidelines for examination in the office for harmonization in the internal market (trade marks and designs) on community trade marks – Part b examination – Section 4 absolute grounds for refusal, 13-14. Available at <https://oami.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/contentPdfs/law_and_practice/trade_marks_practice_manual/WP_1_2016/Part-B/04-part_b_examination_section_4_absolute_grounds_for_refusal/part_b_examination_section_4_absolute_grounds_for_refusal_en.pdf&gt; accessed on 24 February 2016. This guidelines are updated as to 1 February 2016.

[5] Sieckmann (n 3) at 69-71.

Giancarlo Moretti, LL.M (QMUL),  QMJIP Associate Editor

#HOWTOPROTECTMYBRAND

by lauraadrianagrinschgl

These days a brand needs to consider the wide range of opportunities and threats that social media, Web 2.0 and creative consumers constitute, as well as the resulting shifts of activity, value and power. Social media democratises the access to information and knowledge and transforms content consumers into content producers.[1]

SM is intensively used as a marketing tool in order to connect brands with their target audience and it appears to be the missing link in some existing business models. Initial concerns about the possibility that social networking will weaken the relationship with the consumer were unjustified; instead it encourages the customer to interact through Tweets, blogs, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram and Co. with the brand.[2]

Even luxury brands have dared to glance towards social media in order to substantiate customer assets through effective communication. Luxury fashion brands cannot solely rely on their strong brand symbols anymore, but need to provide values to customer in every possible way. Twitter or Facebook allows consumers to communicate with the brand in a direct way and without any restriction in place, time or medium, creating an interactive two- way communication.[3]

A recent example of how much social media has been shaking up the fashion industry is the announcement of Brooklyn Beckham as the photographer of Burberry’s new fragrance ad campaign. In this case, it was actually the astonishing number of 5.9 million Instagram followers that got Brooklyn the job, rather than experience or his famous parents.[4]

Why would Burberry make such a choice?

It is not only much cheaper, but there is also a high possibility that the customer might perceive it as more personal and authentic and it therefore can be useful in the context of a fashion house`s branding strategy. Burberry has been an early adopter of new media approaches and has been one of the first luxury fashion houses to live stream their fashion shows on the Internet. Despite heavy concerns of loosing control over the brand image, the company has now nearly 40 million followers across 20 different social media channels. [5] One of the solutions Burberry has found for itself is to maintain exclusivity through Personalisation, e.g. Art of the Trench.

Particularly from the standpoint of trade mark protection, the engagement of consumers can also have its downsides, especially if an incident of unauthorized trade mark use occurs. For example, if a Facebook URL that contains the brands mark or a Twitter account with the company name is used by a consumer. Most social networking websites already offer tools that a brand owner can make use of, in order to solve infringement problems without having to pursue the route of traditional trade mark enforcement measures, but a brand should be very careful when suing their fans, even when litigation is possible. Social Media sites often use a very broad definition of what a “trade mark violation” constitutes. Twitter[6] for example, includes in its terms that name squatting[7] is also a violation and that every account with the intention to mislead other users will be suspended. Facebook[8] takes a similar approach by providing “IP infringement forms” which allow owners of a trade mark to claim any trade mark infringements by a user of the site. Although social media sites provide certain mechanisms in order to help companies protect their brands, there will be circumstances when the company needs to take more offensive steps to secure their brand in the social media environment.[9]

 

Laura Adriana Grinschgl

 

Assistant Editor QMJIP

 

[1] P Berthon L Pitt K Plangger and D Shapiro, ‘Marketing meets Web 2.0, social media, and creative consumers: Implications for international marketing strategy’ (55/2012) Business Horizons, p. 261- 263

[2] I Mohr, ‘The Impact of Social Media on the Fashion Industry’ vol. 15 (2) 2013 Journal of Applied Business and Economics

[3] J Kim and E Ko, ‘Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand’ (65/2012) Journal of Business Research, p. 1480

[4] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35483480

[5] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35483480

[6] https://support.twitter.com/articles/84341

[7] I.e., when a party uses a Twitter account with the name of a third party without their permission

[8] https://www.facebook.com/legal/copyright.php

[9] http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2010/05/article_0006.html

Black cabs v Batmobile: pros and cons of celebrity

by federicapezza

Breaking news: trade mark protection denied for London black cabs. This is the outcome of a recent ruling by Arnold J, in the Chancery Division, that has considered the London Taxi Corporation (LTD) not to be entitled to claim any trademark infringement against Frazer Nash Research Limited and Ecotive Limited.

It’s a hard time for taxi drivers!

Often neglected because of their prices, as they struggle for life against Uber and the Uberization, London black cabs are now suffering another serious blow.

This is an outcome which may surprise, especially when compared to the recent US one, where the judge, in a very witty and pop culture-sprinkled opinion, expressly recognised copyright and trademark protection to the Batmobile.[1]Specifically, the character was said to be “especially distinctive” and “unique”. Thus, quoting the Ninth Circuit, “Holy Copyright law, Batman!”[2].

But, the question immediately arises. Do we have to be super heroes to get IPR protection?

In order to fully understand the terms of the question, a deeper analysis is required.

Specifically, in the Black Cabs case, the judge held that the trade marks were invalid for the lack of distinctive character, in so far as consisting exclusively of the shape “which gave substantial value to the good”. [3] Curiously, the same element at the basis of Batmobile protection under copyright law, i.e. its “iconic” nature, was fundamental in ruling out trade mark protection under section 3(2)(c) Trade Marks Act.

In other words: pros and cons of celebrity!

Secondly, in investigating the eventually “acquired distinctive character” Arnold J concluded “there was no evidence to suggest that any consumers identified LTC as the source of the taxis because of their shape”.

Further, he found the trade mark not to have been used since 10\12 years before the relevant period and, for this reason, susceptible to be revoked for non–use, according to s. 46 (1) (b) of Trade Marks Act.

Finally, he ruled out the opportunity of a passing off remedy, arguing that LTC’s claim to goodwill had not been based on specific features of shape but upon abstractions.

Thus, following the “Kit Kat” ruling[4], a leading case where trade mark protection was denied for the Kit Kat chocolate bar, the Court approach highlighted, also in this situation, the difficulties in attempting to enforce a trade mark in respect of the shape of goods. The crucial element in the Black Cabs case is represented by an extremely vague notion of average consumer perception, not recognising the mark as indicating the origin of the taxi.

Therefore, what actually arises from the ruling is a bundle of uncertainties and issues in the legal community when dealing with a grey zone such as trade mark protection applied to shapes.

In the mean time, while striking against IP rights challenges and waiting for a clearer definition of the question, let’s just have our deliciously unprotectable Kit Kat and, at least for a moment, forget about everything.

 

 

.

 

 

[1] “We read these precedents as establishing a three-part test for determining whether a character in a comic book, television program, or motion picture is entitled to copyright protection. First, the character must generally have “physical as well as conceptual qualities. Second, the character must be “sufficiently delineated” to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appears. Third, the character must be “especially distinctive” and “contain some unique elements of expression”.

Federica Pezza

Assistant Editor QMJIP

 

 

[2] Mark Towle v DC Comics

[3] Section 3 (2) (c) Trade Marks Act 1994 and Art. 3 (1) (e) (iii) Directive 2008/95/EC

[4] Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Cadbury UK Limited Case C – 215/14

The Greek Film Industry. Time for a Change?

by Maria Tsouvali

 

No one would believe that Greece between 1955 and 1969 was making the highest number of films per capita in the world. For many years it produced around a hundred feature films; a number which dramatically declined since 1970[1]. Despite times of war, political censorship and now financial crisis, the Greek film industry dominates the domestic market, and has experienced occasional international recognition and success. [2]

One of the foremost directors of that international success is Yiorgos Lanthimos[3]. Lanthimos gained international notice for the very first time in 2008 with his controversial movie “Dogtooth”[4] and his most recent movie ‘The Lobster[5]’. ‘Dogtooth’ picked up the Prix un Certain Regard at the Cannes Film Festival and was nominated by the Academy Awards (OSCARS) for Best Foreign Language Film[6]. Critics and cinephiles now look Greek cinema as a contemporary avant garde new genre, called the ‘Greek Weird Wave’[7].

Movies of the Weird Wave, find their origins in the subversive cinema of Lars von Trier and the documentary approach of Michael Haneke. The Wave is characterized by a deep criticism to the structure of the society through a depressing motif caused by the catastrophic consequences of the financial and human crisis in Greece. The concept of the Weird Wave can be summarized in what Edward Lawrenson calls Antonioni’s feel for the ‘expressive emotional potential of urban landscapes’.[8]

Greek cinema shares all the potentials to flourish and give back to the country economic growth. According to Mr. Tsakanikas[9] scientific assistant of the Foundation for Economic and Industrial Research in Greece, if the country produced 20 Greek films per year with an average cost of 450,000 euros that would lead to a 14.2-million-euro increase of the annual GDP, as well as an establishment of 272 jobs.[10] But what are the reasons that led to the country’s current state, where directors struggle to finance their works and producers are being cautious in investing?

According to Article 9 of the Greek Copyright Act[11] the director of an audiovisual work is considered the author of the work and therefore is the copyright holder. The Producer has only related rights. As you may realize Greece is a civil law country following the tradition of the so called ‘droit d’auteur’ systems. On the other hand producers in common law countries such as the U.S are recognized as sole authors of the works. [12]In accordance with the US Copyright statute, copyright protection can be vested not only to natural persons but to legal persons as well. In that case producers find it easier to secure financial assistance for their projects. The difference is obvious. In the U.S the focus is on the investment. If the film is an economic success it will bring profits to the studio and more productions will be made in the future, while in Greece, films are produced giving emphasis to the artistic value of the film in order to be accepted in film festivals and other artistic fora.

It is worth noting that except from the copyright status that may impede film industry growth, financial failings of the Greek government also make it difficult to film artists and producers to find funds and financial assistance for their movies. Further, Greece has a troubling record of corruption and lack of enforcement. In 2010 a new film law (Law 3905/2010)[13] was implemented which obliged  the State broadcaster and cable TV broadcasters to apply 1.5% of their annual gross revenues for the production or the co-production of films. However, obtaining the funding remained only a promise on paper.

Konstantinos Karamaghiolis[14], a talented young director from Greece, known for his two short-movies Sphinx (2012) and a feature documentary with title ‘The Iron Island, Serifos'(2014), describes the reality of making a movie in Greece:

Unfortunately things are worse than you can imagine. The state funding in cinematographic works is inadequate, films seem worthless to the heads of state, the audience avoids Greek movies and the only safe harbor for the directors are the international festivals. Only if we get awarded, funding will get to us; even though it is not guaranteed that it will happen in the end.’

One thing that has been well documented before the global financial crisis he says is that:

‘Greece is characterized by a culture of corruption, favoritism and bureaucracy which gives no incentives to producers to invest and to artists to create. The creative process is damaged as we struggle every day to do the only thing we are meant to do. Create Art’

Moreover, the absence of law giving incentives to foreign investors is another issue to consider. Croatia for example promises 20%[15] of the production costs to be returned to the production company, if they spend more than a million to the country. Greece is a country with breathtaking landscapes and rich history. Movies like ‘Boy on a Dolphin’, ’Zorba the Greek’ ‘The Big Blue’, ‘Mama Mia!” and ‘The Two faces of January’ [16]were filmed in Greece.  The production of foreign films can benefit not only the film makers but also the country. Domestic production will facilitate employment of local people, knowledge transfer and the development of new technologies.

What more to ask for a country trying to resurrect from its ashes? Changing the law and making efforts to support artistic creativity and economic investment in the film industry will help the country which gave birth to civilization, to be reborn.

Maria Tsouvali

Assistant Editor, QMJIP

[1] http://www.minpress.gr/minpress/__outgreece_cinema.pdf

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Greece

[3] http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0487166/

[4] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1379182/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_5

[5] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3464902/

[6] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1379182/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_5

[7] http://www.mcc.sllf.qmul.ac.uk/?p=1280

[8] Lawrenson, Edward. “Wrocław, Reykjavik.” Film Quarterly, 64.2 (2010): 69-71. Print.

[9] Angelos Tsakanikas is assistant professor at the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) and IOBE’s scientific advisor (This is the Foundation for Economic and Industrial Research in Greece).

[10] http://greece.greekreporter.com/2014/12/04/film-industry-could-lead-to-greek-economy-growth/#sthash.J5rEJTjI.dpuf

 

[11] http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=2008

[12] Sotiris Petridis, ’Comparative Issues on Copyright Protection for Films in the US and Greece’, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights,Vol 19, July2014, pp 282-292.

[13] http://www.altcine.com/details.php?id=1133

[14] http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3701089/

[15] http://greece.greekreporter.com/2014/12/04/film-industry-could-lead-to-greek-economy-growth/

[16] http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/08/29/top-10-international-films-shot-in-greece/

IP claims and yogic knowledge: can anybody own yoga?

by cristinaberra

Yoga being an ancient practice and a timeless philosophy, decades ago nobody would have thought it to be affected by intellectual property rights. However, due to a growing interest from western consumers to more orientalised health and physical disciplines, recent times have shown a higher and higher demand for a more contemporary and commercialised yoga practice.

Trademarks, copyrights and patents on yoga-related products and services are by now countless and this is the ultimate example of how the increasing use of intellectual property in this field is the result of yoga becoming a global phenomenon, where the different players try to distinguish themselves by making their practises, schools, goods and services a recognisable brand and a profitable market.

An obvious consequence of this trend is the proliferation of yoga related IP disputes. One of the most recent and most debated ones involved the Indian Guru Bikram Choudhury, widely known for having developed one of the most profitable – and possibly most highly IP protected – style of yoga, the so-called “Bikram Yoga”. The dispute concerned the copyrightability of a sequence of twenty-six asanas and two breathing exercises, arranged in a particular order and performed in a space heated at 40 degrees (called the “Sequence”), which was eventually denied by the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.[1]

Yoga related IP claims have brought international attention to the question of whether a traditional spiritual practice such as yoga can be subject to private property or resides in the public domain.

Even if there is not an accepted international definition of traditional knowledge, it can be described as “knowledge, know-how, skills and practises that are developed, sustained and passed on from generation to generation within a community, often forming part of its cultural or spiritual identity”. [2] Traditional knowledge is not originally created to be exploited but it is intended to be used within the community from which it developed and whose traditions and beliefs it embodies.

Recently, extensive debates in the IP scene have involved traditional knowledge issues and the possible measures to be taken in order to prevent its misappropriation. India’s concerns for the privatisation of yogic knowledge can certainly be connected with the government’s anxiety over the piracy of its national cultural heritage, which over time has been provoked by various IP claims from western companies on traditional agricultural and botanical products, such as basmati rice, turmeric and neem.

In order to prevent such attempts of appropriating what it is part of their tradition and openly known in their territories from time immemorial, in 2001 India created a Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), which essentially acts as a digital repository of Indian medical wisdom. The database includes Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Yoga and it is intended to be disseminated to IP agencies all around the world. [3]

Indian experts have been attempting to document centuries-old yoga techniques and it is said that over one thousands of yoga poses have been identified so far and are little by little being added to the Digital Library. However, if the TKDL is seen by many as a necessary tool to protect yogic knowledge, it is still unknown if it will be sufficient to challenge future IP claims on it. In fact, if there is no doubt that yoga is an Indian contribution to the world, it is argued if India can, for this reason, act to control all knowledge and practice related to it.[4]

What it is certain is that the commercialisation of yoga – and perhaps some forms of privatisation – is an on-going phenomenon that will not stop to develop, and intellectual property, for better or for worse, will inevitably be involved in the process. In this context, however, the worldwide yoga community should always bear in mind one of the basics of the yogic teaching and act accordingly: yoga is for everybody.

Cristina Berra

Assistant Editor, QMJIP

[1] On the basis of the copyright’s idea/expression dichotomy codified by Section 102(b) of the US Copyright Act, the Court held that the “Sequence” cannot be subject of copyright protection, being it “an idea, process or system designed to improve health” (find the full text of the decision here). Copyright protection is in fact limited to the expression of ideas and does not extend to the ideas themselves. Therefore, if Bikram Choudhury still enjoys copyright protection on his books concerning the “Sequence”, he does not have any protection on the “Sequence” itself and cannot prevent others from teaching it.

[2] http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/tk/

[3] http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2011/03/article_0002.html

[4] Krishna Ravi Srinivas, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Traditional Knowledge: The Case of Yoga’ [2007] 42(27/28) Economic and Political Weekly 2869

March 2016 #IPEvents

by Pedro Malaquias

UNITED KINGDOM

  • 1 March – Leeds – ITMA – ITMA & CIPA Talk in Leeds: EU Trade Mark & Copyright ReformsLink.
  • 2 March – Reading – Osborne Clarke – IP and IT | current issues for IP specialistsLink.
  • 3 March – Oxford – OIPRC – OIPRC Invited Speaker Series Professor Severine Dusollier: Principles underlying copyright exceptions in the European Union and what could lie ahead?Link.
  • 3-4 March – Bournemouth – CIPPM – PhD School on Economics of CopyrightLink.
  • 4 March – London – CIPA – Successful Negotiation of Claim Eligibility in United States IT & Software CasesLink.
  • 4 March – Cambridge – MBL Seminars – Intellectual Property Rights in Software Link.
  • 7 March – London – CCLS Queen Mary University of London –Human gene patenting – Link.
  • 7 March – Manchester – IPO & ITMA – IPO & ITMA RoadshowLink.
  • 7 March – London – University Of Westminster & BBM/BMC – Culture, Appropriation, Authorship And Copyright – The Story Of ‘The Lion Sleeps Tonight’Link.
  • 7-8 March – London – MBL Seminars – A to Z of Negotiating & Drafting IT Contracts In 2 Days Link.
  • 8 March – Cambridge – CIPIL – 11th Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture: ‘Big Data in the platform economy: a need to redesign the rules?’Link.
  • 8 March – Oxford – OIPRC – Impact of EU Geographical Indications Legislation on National IPR ProtectionLink.
  • 9 March – London – MBL Seminars – Anti-Trust & Competition Aspects of Intellectual Property Link.
  • 9 March – Leeds – MBL Seminars – A Practical Guide to Trade Secrets: Key Risks, Exploitation & More! Link.
  • 9-10 March – London – Managing IP –MIP International Patent Forum 2016 – Link.
  • 10 March – Oxford – OIPRC – OIPRC Invited Speaker Series Professor Bernt Hugenholtz: Copyright in the EU digital single market. The end of territorialityLink.
  • 12 March – Cambridge – CIPIL – CIPIL Spring Conference 2016: The Essence of IP: Scope of ProtectionLink.
  • 14 March – London – Assimilate IP –Freedom to Operate for the Life Sciences and Pharmaceutical Industries – Link.
  • 14-15 March – London – PTMG – 92nd Pharmaceutical Trade Marks Group Spring Conference 2016Link.
  • 15 March – Leeds – MBL Seminars – The Law of Passing Off Link.
  • 16 March – London – Osborne Clarke – Commercialising your IP assets in the retail and leisure sectorLink.
  • 16 March – Glasgow – CREATe – Workshop “Openness and IP”, presented by Dr. Stefan Haefliger (Cass Business School and others)Link.
  • 16 March – Glasgow – CREATe – Public Lecture by Rufus Pollock ‘Openness, Power and Equality in the Information Age’Link.
  • 16 March – London – Events 4 Sure – Global IP ConfexLink.
  • 16-18 March – London – ITMA – ITMA Spring Conference 2016Link.
  • 17 March – Bournemouth – CIPPM – The future of publishers in the online environment (Martin Senftleben)Link.
  • 17 March – London – CIPA – The Yorkshire MeetingLink.
  • 17 March – London – Bristows – Patents Review of the Year 2015 AM sessionLink.
  • 17 March – Cambridge – MBL Seminars – A Practical Guide to Copyright Litigation Issues & Pleadings Link.
  • 21 March – Leeds – MBL Seminars – A Practical Guide to Copyright Litigation Issues & Pleadings Link.
  • 21-22 March – Leeds – MBL Seminars – A to Z of Negotiating & Drafting IT Contracts In 2 Days Link.
  • 22 March – London – Bristows – Patents Review of the Year 2015 PM sessionLink.
  • 23 March – Birmingham – MBL Seminars – IP for Commercial Lawyers: A Practical Guide – Link.
  • 31 March – Manchester – MBL Seminars – IP for Commercial Lawyers: A Practical Guide – Link.

CONTINENTAL EUROPE

  • 1-2 March – Munich, Germany – Management Circle – Patente 2016Link.
  • 3-4 March – Frankfurt, Germany – MARQUES – Spring Team MeetingLink.
  • 3-4 March – Madrid, Spain – FIDE – IV Congreso Propiedad Industrial, Propiedad Intelectual y Nuevas Tecnologías Link.
  • 4 March – Ludwigshafen, Germany – Women in IP – Spring Forum 2016 – Link.
  • 7-9 March – Hamburg, Germany – Legal IQ – Global IP ExchangeLink.
  • 8 March – Aachen, Germany – EU IPR Helpdesk – Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in Horizon 2020Link.
  • 8 March – Paris, France – ASPI –L’évolution des pratiques et de la jurisprudence à l’étranger: focus sur les droits de PI et les brevets au Japon et en Allemagne – Link.
  • 8 March – Bilbao, Spain – LES – Puesta en común de un caso práctico sobre licenciamientoLink.
  • 8 March – Athens, Greece – WIPO – Roving Seminars on WIPO Services and InitiativesLink.
  • 8-9 March – Brussels, Belgium – EGA – 12th Legal Affairs Conference Link.
  • 9-11 March – Alicante, Spain – FORUM Institut für Management – Trademark Conference at OHIMLink.
  • 10 March – Munich, Germany – FORUM Institut für Management – US Design PatentsLink.
  • 10 March – Thessaloniki, Greece – WIPO – Roving Seminars on WIPO Services and InitiativesLink.
  • 10-11 March – Dusseldorf, Germany – Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf – Düsseldorfer Patentrechtstage 2016 – Link.
  • 11 March – Madrid, Spain – LES – Innovación y TransformaciónLink.
  • 11 March – Moscow, Russia – FICPI Russia – SeminarLink.
  • 14 March – Barcelona, Spain – OEPM & Centro de Patentes de la Universidad de Barcelona – Jornada de estudio y actualización en materia de patentes (Los Lunes de Patentes)Link.
  • 14-15 March – Amsterdam, Netherlands – C5 –Pharmaceutical & Biotech Patent Litigation Conference – Link.
  • 14-16 March – Noordwijk, Netherlands – Consero –IP Forum For Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology – Link.
  • 15 March – Paris, France – FNDE –Synthèse Droit des Marques – Link.
  • 15 March – Stockholm, Sweden – AIPPI –AIPPI Day 2016 – Link.
  • 15-16 March – Copenhagen, Denmark – Legal IQ – Nordic IPRLink.
  • 15-16 March – Amsterdam, Netherlands – FORUM Institut für Management – The Art of EP Claim DraftingLink.
  • 15-17 March – Heidelberg, Germany – FORUM Institut für Management – IP StrategyLink.
  • 16 March – Brussels, Belgium – ECTA – Workshop on the Implementation of the Trade Mark Reform, Internet of Things and Intellectual Property Rights Link.
  • 16 March – Zeist, Netherlands – AIPPI –IE Symposium Zeist – Link.
  • 17 March – Paris, France – Premier Cercle –Les nouvelles frontières de la Propriété intellectuelle : état des lieux et perspectives – Link.
  • 17 March – Helsinki, Finland – IPR University Centre – The Logistics of Ideas: managing technology assets as part of an IPR Strategy implementationLink.
  • 22 March – Paris, France – IRPI – Droit des MarquesLink.
  • 31 March – Dusseldorf, Germany – FORUM Institut für Management – China IP 2016Link.
  • 31 March – Madrid, Spain – FIDE – Reciente jurisprudencia del TJUE y de la jurisprudencia española relativa a la protección internacional de los derechos de propiedad intelectual e industrial Link.

USA & CANADA

  • 1 March – Atlanta, GA, USA – Center Force –The 2nd Annual IP Strategy Summit Atlanta – Link.
  • 1 March – New York, NY, USA – Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts – The Section 1201 RulemakingLink.
  • 3 March – New York, NY, USA – LES – To Fail or Not to Fail: Pitfalls in Funding and Sustaining a Biotech StartupLink.
  • 3 March – Basking Ridge, NJ, USA – LES – Commercializing Genetic Therapies: Innovating Science, Supply Chain and ReimbursementLink.
  • 8 March – San Francisco, CA, USA – SFIPLA – Beyond Bullet Points: Visual Presentation of an IP CaseLink.
  • 8 March – New York, NY, USA – Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts – Copyright TrollsLink.
  • 9 March – Montréal, Quebec, Canada – LES – IP and GenomicsLink.
  • 9 March – Austin, TX, USA – CSUSA – Software Licenses in Today’s World: A Software Licensing WorkshopLink.
  • 14 March – Portland, OR, USA – Lewis & Clark Law School – IP in the Trees Workshop Series: Professor Christopher NewmanLink.
  • 15 March – Silicon Valley, CA, USA – Managing IP –MIP US Patent Forum – Link.
  • 15 March – Princeton, NJ, USA – LES – IP & Licensing Basics: A One-Day ReviewLink.
  • 15-16 March – New York, NY, USA – INTA – Brands and Sports Conference 2016Link.
  • 16 March – Washington DC, USA – GW Law – IP Speaker Series: Tagmarks by Alexandra Roberts Link.
  • 17 March – Portland, OR, USA – Lewis & Clark Law School – Professor Loren’s 2015-16 ‘The Business of IP’ Lunchtime SeriesLink.
  • 17 March – Washington DC, USA – Managing IP –MIP US Patent Forum – Link.
  • 22 March – New York, NY, USA – IAM – NPE 2016: The Business of Responsible LicensingLink.
  • 22 March – New York, NY, USA – CSUSA – New York Chapter Lunch at the Princeton ClubLink.
  • 23 March – Chicago, IL, USA – John Marshal Law School – The Enforcement World is Turning: Recent Changes in USITC Law and PracticeLink.
  • 23 March – Quebec, Canada – LES – La propriété intellectuelle dans le monde des jeux vidéo et des applications mobilesLink.
  • 23-24 March – New York, NY, USA – World Congress – The 8th Annual Corporate IP CounselLink.
  • 24 March – Boston, MA, USA – CSUSA – The Music Business and Music Copyright: In Honor of Mark Fischer, Esq.Link.
  • 30 March – Houston, TX, USA – Denneymer – Denneymer Annual MeetingLink.
  • 31 March to 1 April – New York, NY, USA – Fordham IP Institute – Fordham Intellectual Property Law and Policy ConferenceLink.

LATIN, CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA

  • 2-4 March – Guadalajara, Mexico – AMPII – 5th International AMPII ConferenceLink.
  • 13-15 March – Aruba, MA, USA – ASIPI –Seminario ASIPI – Link.

ASIA & OCEANIA

  • 2 March – Mumbai, India – INTA – Strategic Brand Management Workshop: Preparing for India’s Emergence as a Global Economic PowerhouseLink.
  • 3 March – Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – AIPPI & ASEAN –AIPPI ASEAN Regional Meeting 2016: Changing IPR Dynamics in ASEAN – Link.
  • 9 March – Ringwood, Australia – IP Australia – Start Me Grow MeLink.
  • 9 March – Chermside, Australia – IP Australia – IP for Start-ups and Small BusinessLink.
  • 8-10 March – Singapore – IP Academy – WSQ Evaluate IP ValuationLink.
  • 10 March – Brisbane, Australia – IP Australia – IP for Start-ups and Small BusinessLink.
  • 10 March – Singapore – IP Academy – From Idea to Invention: Realising the Commercial Potential of your Invention through the Invention Assessment ProcessLink.
  • 11 March – Singapore – IP Academy – Building a Competitive Edge with IP: Leveraging on your Trade $ecretsLink.
  • 11 March – Singapore – IP Academy – Trade SecretsLink.
  • 15 March – Singapore – IP Academy – IP in the CloudLink.
  • 15-16 March – Tokyo, Japan – BIO – 13th Annual BIO Asia International ConferenceLink.
  • 17 March – North Ryde, Australia – Association of Corporate Counsel –IP Masterclass – Link.
  • 17 March – Perth, Australia – Association of Corporate Counsel –Trade Marks, domain names and online issues – Link.
  • 20 March – Jerusalem, Israel – AIPPI Israel –The 2nd International Convention on The Economy of Innovation Pre-Conference: Start-Up Nation Tour – Link.
  • 21-22 March – Tel-Aviv, Israel – AIPPI Israel –The 2nd International Convention on The Economy of Innovation – Link.
  • 23 March – Singapore – IP Academy – IPM Course & Toolkit for Procurement OfficersLink.

 

@PedroMMalaquias (LL.M. in Intellectual Property Law at Queen Mary, University of London)

Trade mark invalidity, bad faith and branding strategies: the case of Alexander Wang

by Federica Pigozzo

New York-based designer Alexander Wang is unquestionably one of the brightest stars of the contemporary fashion landscape and the perfect example of a rapidly burgeoning career: after starting his own label in 2005, he went from showing his first full ready-to-wear collection in 2007 to being appointed Creative Director of the historic French house Balenciaga in 2012, with the hazardous task of replacing Nicolas Ghesquière in the role. His sporty and relaxed aesthetics quickly gained him the support of critics, journalists and celebrities, turning him into the symbol of modern American style.

Following his debut on the international fashion scene, Wang first registered his brand name as a Community Trade Mark (CTM) in 2007, in the context of a commercial strategy whose aim was to protect the label’s growing value as it entered the European market. The registration was made for leather goods (Class 18), clothing and footwear (Class 25)[1]. Nonetheless, when in 2012 he filed for a subsequent registration for a number of additional classes, his request was denied with regards to Class 3, which includes perfumes, cosmetics and hair products.

This failure was due to the fact that there was an already existing registration for the same class of goods: Etincelle Paris, an obscure, unrelated company based in the British Virgin Islands, had in fact successfully registered the “Alexander Wang” mark the previous year[2].

In order to get his name back, Wang filed a request for a declaration of invalidity against Etincelle’s CTM, claiming the company had acted in bad faith at the moment of the registration according to Article 52(1)(b) of the CTM Regulation (CTMR). Both the OHIM Cancellation Division[3] and more recently the Second Board of Appeals[4] upheld the request. As a result, the mark is now pending immediate cancellation.

What makes this case particularly interesting is the main argument the applicant presented to prove his position in front of the authorities.

As already disclosed, Article 52(1)(b) CTMR states that a Community Trade Mark must be declared invalid if its proprietor ‘was acting in bad faith when he filed the application for the trade mark’.

‘Bad faith’ is an extremely broad concept and it does not have a clear legal definition. However, the Regulation’s wording clarifies that it has to be considered as one of the absolute grounds for invalidity and has to be referred to the moment in time when the application for registration took place. Moreover, in his opinion on the Lindt Goldhase case[5], the Advocate General Sharpston affirmed that bad faith appears to be an ‘inherent defect in the application’[6]. Such defect is usually associated to a conduct which does not comply with the ‘accepted principles of ethical behaviour or honest commercial and business practices’[7] and can be evaluated through a comparison between the specific circumstances of the specific case and the aforementioned standards.

The assessment on the nature of the CTM proprietor’s behaviour can therefore be classified as an overall assessment that considers all the relevant factors[8]. In particular, some of the elements that can be taken into account are the fact that the applicant should have been aware of the existence of another similar or identical mark for similar of identical goods which could have generated confusion in the marketplace; the applicant’s intention of actively preventing the other party from using such mark; the degree of legal protection comparatively granted to the two signs in question[9].

In the case hereby examined, the Board of Appeal found the evidence gathered by Wang to be compelling enough to conclude that bad faith was indeed present at the moment of the application for the registration of the mark[10]. Specifically, bad faith was inferred from a series of circumstances for which Etincelle failed to provide a plausible explanation.

Firstly, at the time of the filing Alexander Wang was widely known not only in the United States but also across the European Union, as clearly indicated by the multitude of press articles submitted by the applicant. The prestigious prizes won by the designer, his appointment as Creative Director of a European-based business and his collaboration with European artists also contributed to the evaluation. In this sense, the facts provided allowed the Board to establish a presumption of knowledge of use of the earlier sign upon Etincelle[11].

Secondly, the configuration of the sign is unique as it originates from the combination of two names that, although common if singularly considered, become unusual when put together due to the multicultural nature of the resulting compound[12].

Finally, the CTM proprietor filed for the registration of other famous fashion designers’ names, including Isabel Marant, Giuseppe Zanotti, Giambattista Valli and Christoper Kane[13]. Although such conduct does not per se prove the proprietor’s bad faith in the case here considered, it nevertheless gives a strong indication of dishonest intentions.

In light of the above, it is clear that the commercial logic underlying the proprietor’s demeanour served as a leitmotiv in the analysis performed by the Board. In the same perspective, Alexander Wang’s decision to regain control of his brand name definitely plays an important role in the context of the company’s branding strategy.

In recent years, the designer and his team have indeed been working towards extending the label’s production with the intention of repositioning the brand within a more luxury-oriented market. Facts such as Wang’s decision not to renew his contract with Balenciaga, the release of his first jewellery collection, the increase of the brand’s European production[14], the dispute regarding the registration of several domain names that incorporated his mark[15] and lastly the battle over his name in relation to fragrances and cosmetics all point to the same conclusion. Thus, it is once again possible to observe how fashion brands can take advantage of the existing IP framework to build out their goodwill, re-balance competition in the marketplace and ultimately achieve a greater degree of brand loyalty, an extremely precious yet fleeting tool in a scenario characterised by over-saturation and erratic consumer behaviour.

 

Federica Pigozzo

Associate Editor, QMJIP

____________________________

[1] www.tmdn.org/tmview/get-detail?st13=WO500000000920691

[2] www.tmdn.org/tmview/get-detail?st13=EM500000010533891

[3] http://www.ie-forum.be/www.delex-backoffice.nl/uploads/file/IEFBE/IE-Forum_be%20BHIM%2015%20oktober%202014,%20IEFbe%201099%20(Alexander%20Wang%20tegen%20Etincelle).pdf

[4] http://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/010533891

[5] Case C-529/07, Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG v Franz Hauswirth GbbH

[6] Opinion of the Advocate General, 12 March 2009, case C-529/07, paragraph 41.

[7] Ibid, paragraph 60.

[8] Case C-529/07, paragraph 37.

[9] Ibid, paragraph 53.

[10] Good faith is in fact presumed until evidence to the contrary is provided by the cancellation applicant.

[11] Boards of Appeals decision, paragraph 73.

[12] Ibid, paragraph 85.

[13] Ibid, paragraph 86.

[14] See http://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/news-analysis/alexander-wang-increases-european-production

[15] See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2010-2134

EU collective and certification marks after the Trade Mark reform

by Giancarlo Moretti

On 23 March the amendments to the Community Trade Mark Regulation 207/2009[1] (hereinafter CTMR) will enter into force. Beyond the obvious substitution of the word Community with the expression European Union (some years later after the abolition of the European Community by the Lisbon Treaty) and other relevant modifications,[2] both the new Trade Mark Directive[3] (to be implemented by January 2019) and Regulation 2424/2015[4] introduced relevant provisions concerning collective and certifications marks.

These categories of marks are different from an ordinary trade mark, whose main function is to guarantee the origin of a good or service from an individual source.[5] Indeed, their use is open to a plurality of subjects and they do not identify a single undertaking.[6] Specifically, a certification mark serves to certify that a good or a service complies with certain standards related to its origin, the material used, the manufacturing process or the quality. A collective mark, instead, aims to signal that a good or a service is originated by a member of a given association.[7]

The current version of the CTMR provides protection for Community collective marks (Article 66), while the Trade Mark Directive,[8] at Article 15, allows Member States to adopt further grounds for refusal or revocation for these special marks others than the ones set out in Articles 3 and 12. The reform package passed by the Parliament and published in late December sensitively changes the current framework. On the one hand, Regulation 2424/2015 introduces the possibility to lodge an application for a EU Certification mark. On the other hand, the new Trade Mark Directive sets forth the obligation for the Member States to implement provisions in order to protect collective marks. Albeit the most part of the countries already protect them, this article seems to be fully consistent with Article 7bis of the Paris Convention. Moreover, the new Directive leaves up to the single member to enact legislation in regard to certification or guarantee marks. Thus, it offers the possibility for domestic jurisdictions to introduce this special type of marks.

The impact of these novelties has to be tested yet in the upcoming years. An important aspect of this reform, however, is that the EU framework seems to converge with those of new-world countries. Australia, USA and Canada producers have registered certification marks for many years and have been used even in order to protect geographical indications, as Idaho potatoes. In relation to certification marks, the new provisions seem to exclude this option. Indeed, Article 74a of the new Regulation reads as follows: “An EU certification mark shall be an EU trade mark which is described as such when the mark is applied for and is capable of distinguishing goods or services which are certified by the proprietor of the mark […] with the exception of geographical origin, from goods and services which are not so certified.” EU Collective marks, instead, may be used to this extent. Instead, the new Directive allows Member State to authorise producers to rely on collective marks in order to indicate the geographical origin of a good or a service.[9]

Beside the never-ending controversy around these two models of protection,[10] there is no doubt that the Trade Mark Reform has sensitively changed the framework. Collective and certification marks are flexible tools that may offer protection to associations of producers of small and medium enterprises and that could enhance their competiveness in the current knowledge economy. Even if with some delay, the European lawmaker has surely implemented important amendments that, if properly exploited, could have a positive impact for EU economy.

[1] Council Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community Trade Mark [2009] OJ L 78/1.

[2] For example, the new pieces of legislation stipulates a new definition of trade mark with no reference to the graphical representation.

[3] Directive 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks [2015] OJ L 336/1.

[4] Regulation 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) [2015] OJ L 341/21.

[5] See also Arsenal Football Club plc v Matthew Reed  C-206/01 [2002] ECR 2002 I-10273.

[6] As for certification marks, the owner is usually prevented by using them. One of the few exception is represented by Australian legislation. See Trade Marks Act (Cth) 1995, note to Section 169.

[7] See also Jeffrey Belson, ‘Use, Certification and Collective Marks’ in Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon (eds), Trade mark use (Oxford University Press 2005), 147 ff.

[8] Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks [2008] OJ L 299/25.

[9] This option is already available under the UK Trade Mark Act 1994. See Schedule 1 Section 3 and Schedule 2 Section 3 of Trade Mark Act 1994 (as amended). See also Robin Jacob, Daniel Alexander and Matthew Fisher, Guidebook to Intellectual Property (6th ed, Hart 2013), 119 ff.

[10] For an overview of the differences between the systems, see Alberto Francisco Ribeiro de Almeida, ‘Key Differences between Trade Marks and Geographical Indications’ (2008) 30(10) E.I.P.R. 406.

Giancarlo Moretti, LL.M. (QMUL), QMJIP Associate Editor

3d printed pizzas and other delights

by federicapezza

 

“Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice”. This was the magic recipe creating the “Powerpuff girls” in the Cartoon Network Saga of the same name. In a similar way, Doctor Frankenstein, Mary Shelley’s famous character, gave life to his own Creature in his laboratory.

The underlying idea was the possibility of creating something from nothing, through the combination of different ingredients. But, although genial, these two examples do not come from real life: that’s all about fiction.

Surprisingly, however, what is currently taking place is the revolution of the manufacturing industry through 3D Printing (or Additive Manufacturing) technology, resulting in the creation of solid objects from digital ones.

The possible applications of this new technology are numerous: let’s think about fashion and the recent fully articulated 3D printed dress specifically designed for Dita Von Teese; let’s also think about the electronics and the bio-science industries.

In food as well, although always connected to homemade traditions, 3D printing is slowly taking its first steps. And it’s not just about mass- produced food items like junk food and cheap high street chains: 3D printing goes hand in hand with quality and “nouvelle cuisine”. A further demonstration of this trend is the recent 3D-printed Barilla pasta campaign, but also the collaboration between Modica (one of the oldest and well-established Italian chocolate manufacturers) and a 3D printing retailer, or the realization of the typical Moon Cake through a 3D printing machine in Asia.

However, as the finest of traditions, new technologies mean new legal issues.

Specifically, the main problems arising relate to:

  1. Ownership;
  2. Copyright infringement;
  3. Privacy law; and
  4. Originality of the final work.

Even if it is quite difficult to find a precise answer for each of these questions, we can refer to the practice of whomever has made a 3D printout of their work.

Speaking with the “Makers cafe” team during a recent conference at Queen Mary, University of London, the audience had the opportunity to understand that normally a business is run through consultancy agreements, reserving all the property rights to the client.

Further, the normal way to deal with possible copyright issues is through detailed contracts, specifying the private use of the work in order to avoid any form of liability.

Privacy law and confidentiality concerns are normally foreseen by means of specific Non Disclosure Agreements (NDA).

Finally, the issue about originality has to be considered in the light of the transformative nature of the new work and the amount of creativity exercised by the author. Thus, it will result in a case-by-case evaluation.

Apart from the possible legal matters, many advantages are connected with this new kind of technology. Shorter production time, lower costs (the cheapest 3D printer is £400), and no skill requirement are just some of the notable advantages. Also, when applied to cooking strategies, 3D printing can surprisingly reveal itself as a powerful tool in order to achieve very complex products without any effort. For example, one would be able to make a tasty “tortellini” through the combination of different “tubes” of ingredients.

Striking the right balance between new technologies and related challenges, I have just one last recommendation for you. Put the ingredients in and, if you are not able to make your own pretty Powerpuff Girls, at least brace yourself and start enjoying your 3D printed pancakes! It is worth £400, isn’t it?

Federica Pezza

Assistant Editor QMJIP

 

IP challenges: Is 3D printing protecting or infringing?

by viktoriavakratsa

Intellectual property law is mentioned most often as the legal regime around 3D printing since it affects IP law and issues of product safety and product liability fit to the relevance of a 3D printed world. From the automotive industry to medicine and biotechnology 3D printers can reach results where no human hand can or ever will.

Such revolutions in technology often allow a comparison between the issue of computer-aided design (CAD) files[1] to the digital files on the Internet. The new technologies made copying easier; as the CSC consultancy pointed: ‘3D printing is providing a platform for the collaboration that is accelerating innovation and disruption of the material world, just as the Internet fostered collaboration, innovation and disruption in the digital world’[2].

Innovation, creativity, originality? A question of awarding intellectual property rights equitably is generated. Where should we draw the balance of intellectual property rights protection? Particularly, when the 3D printer can be protected mostly due to its complex engineering design (i.e. the design of the printer, the software used behind printing mechanism, the patent for the working of the invention), and simultaneously produce a counterfeit or knockoff of the original product; designs are made available on the Internet and the owners’ intellectual property rights are exposed and potentially abused. A 3D printer will therefore be liable for secondary infringement in the creative industries[3].

3D printing for the government could interfere with the public interest in fostering creativity and innovation. As such, the debate continues to develop and issues arise relating to intellectual property. For instance the capability of CAD files to get protection. The territorial nature of  copyright protection for software is in conflict with the extraterritorial nature of online platforms, thus leading to uncertainty regarding the applicable intellectual property protection regime. For the industry, on the other hand, protection would secure streaming for 3D CAD files as licensing of such files becomes increasingly and wisely used. On a specific note, the automotive industry has given consideration to traceability of 3D printed spare parts focusing on safety and usability[4], giving creditable focus on the capabilities of such manufacturing processes.

It is unclear whether the industrial use of 3D printing is capable of taking over traditional manufacturing processes[5]. The emergence of online 3D printing platforms becomes relevant and significant due to consumer power and opportunity through personalisation of the product. Brands are therefore forced to ‘push up’ marketing strategies, to enhance intellectual property in general and unleash the innovative potential over the manufacturing technologies[6]. Infringement claims may be of low-value as deterrents, since patent courts (at least in the UK) are designed to avoid high legal costs, but the value of claims has considerably increased[7]. Interestingly enough, 3D printing companies manage to avoid infringement claims by undertaking due diligence to protect the products before manufacturing, for example by contractually ensuring the 3D printed products will be of private use excluding any commercial exploitation thereof. These contractual arrangements in respect of intellectual property may nevertheless be inadequate if enforcement is imars rival. On that note, the UK Intellectual Property Office[8] has taken considerable steps to review the legal environment and address such questions. However, the issues  are developing rapidly and it is highly possible that clarifying the legal environment around 3D printing will be left to the authority of the Courts. The issue is to be regarded on an international basis in due course.

Viktoria Vakratsa

Assistant Editor, QMJIP

 

[1] The use of computer systems to aid in the creation, modification, analysis, or optimization of a design. CAD output is often in the form of electronic files (printing) while its software is used to increase the productivity of the designer, improve the quality of design, and to create a database for manufacturing

[2] WIPO Magazine, April 2013. http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2013/02/article_0004.html, accessed on 15 February 2016

[3] http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/The-intellectual-property-challenges-from-3D-printing, accessed 15 February 2016

[4] 3D Printing Research Reports, Intellectual Property Office, 29 April 2015, found in https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/3d-printing-research-reports, accessed in 15 February 2016.

[5] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/4-ways-3d-printing-change-dubais-economy-dominic-wright?trk=prof-post&trk=hp-feed-article-title-share

[6] WIPO Magazine, April 2013. http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2013/02/article_0004.html, accessed on 15 February 2016

[7] http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/The-intellectual-property-challenges-from-3D-printing, accessed 15 February 2016

[8] UK Intellectual Property Office, https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office