Uncategorized

THREE-DIMENSIONAL MARK OF A PARTICULAR BOTTLE SHAPE: THE EU COURT RULES ON DISTINCTIVENESS

05/12/2018

In 2015, a German company applied for the registration of a three-dimensional trademark for the particular shape of a bottle. The application was rejected, as was the subsequent appeal before the EUIPO Board of Appeal. The EU General Court, subsequently hearing the case, overturned the decision, asserting the distinctive character of the trademark in question.

 

In 2015 the German company Wajos GmbH applied for registration of a trademark for a particular shape of bottle, characterized by different sizes between the top and bottom of the same. The EUIPO Board of Appeal found that the shape was similar to that of a common amphora, which was already widespread on the food market, and stated that it was impossible for an average consumer to distinguish the products of Wajos from those of other companies. Furthermore, the Board considered that such a shape would meet functional requirements, since the enlargement of the upper part would allow the bottle to be placed on a support which would otherwise be difficult. According to EUIPO, for goods for which the trademark has been applied for, the relevant public would be the general consumer of food products, with a medium level of attention; such a circumstance would prevent consumers from identifying the shape of the bottle as particularly distinctive and indicative of the origin of the product. Therefore, as the trademark does not have distinctive character, it would not be eligible for registration under Article 7(1)(b) of EU Regulation 2017/1001.

In the motion against the decision of the EUIPO Commission, the company Wajos first contested a similar identification of the target audience, arguing instead that this was made up of a small circle of consumers, lovers of fine, quality food products and available from selected retailers. Such a clientele must therefore be considered more than wise and certainly able to appreciate the particularity of that specific bottle compared to other bottles on the market.

Regarding the distinctive character of the brand, Wajos supported its presence by emphasizing the non-purely functional character of the bottle configuration, clearly distinguishing it from the other forms of packaging on the market, to which the relevant public is accustomed.The European General Court firstly held that distinctive character must be assessed, on the one hand, in relation to the goods and services for which registration is sought and, on the other, in relation to the perception of the relevant public. With respect to the relevant public, the Court also identified the relevant consumer as an average consumer, on average attentive, since the list of products for which registration has been requested includes, to a large extent, consumer products in the food sector.

However, the EGC held that the average consumer was perfectly capable of perceiving and appreciating the shape of the packaging of the goods as an indication of their commercial origin, provided that the characteristics of that shape were such as to attract his attention. To that end, it is necessary to analyze the overall impression created by the shape. Where a trade mark is made up of a combination of elements – the Court maintains – the combination may have distinctive character even if the individual elements, taken individually, do not.

The Court therefore held that the combination of the elements of the Wajos bottle creates a shape that can be memorized by the relevant public, being significantly different from the other bottles on the food market. Moreover, contrary to what the EUIPO Board of Appeal has stated, the shape of the bottle in question differs from classic amphoras in that the latter are not made of glass. Finally, the enlargement of the upper part of the bottle, regardless of technical and functional reasons, can bring an aesthetic value to the trademark applied for. The European Judges therefore annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, considering that while it is true that the average consumer generally does not pay attention to the shape of food products and does not associate their shape with the indication of commercial origin, in the present case the exceptional nature of the product’s packaging is, on the contrary, capable of indicating the commercial origin of the products.


ALDI WINS A FIGHT AGAINST WINEMAKERS ALLOWING TO SELL BRANDED CHAMPAGNE SORBETS

09/01/2018

Aldi Süd, the giant discount supermarket chain from Germany, was allowed to carry on selling branded Champagne sorbets, notwithstanding EU protection of the name.

 

The Comité Inteprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (“CIPV”), a French association of champagne producers, brought proceedings before the German courts against the German discount supermarket Aldi Süd to prohibit it from selling a sorbet under the name ‘Champagner Sorbet’. That sorbet, which Aldi Süd started selling at the end of 2012, contains 12% champagne. Taking the view that the distribution of that product under that name constituted an infringement of the PDO ‘Champagne’, the association of champagne producers, brought proceedings based on Article 118m of Regulation No 1234/2007 and Article 103 of Regulation No 1308/2013, prohibiting Aldi from using that name on the frozen goods market. According to the CIPV, the distribution of the sorbet under that name infringes the protected designation of origin (hereafter, PDO) ‘Champagne’. The German Federal Court of Justice has requested a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice for an interpretation of EU rules on the protection of PDOs.

Having analysed relevant provisions, the European Court of Justice upheld that Aldi could continue calling its product ‘Champagner Sorbet’ as it does not unfairly take advantage of the reputation that Champagne producers gain from using the iconic name. According to the Court, in the present case the use of the name ‘Champagner Sorbet’ to refer to a sorbet containing champagne is liable to extend to that product the reputation of the PDO ‘Champagne’, which conveys an image of quality and prestige, and therefore to take advantage of that reputation. However, such use of the name ‘Champagner Sorbet’ does not take undue advantage and, therefore, does not exploit the reputation of the PDO ‘Champagne’ if the product concerned has, as one of its essential characteristics, a taste that is primarily attributable to champagne.

It follows that the use of a PDO as part of the name under which is sold a foodstuff that does not correspond to the product specifications for that PDO but contains an ingredient which does correspond to those specifications cannot be regarded as an unfair use and, therefore, as a use against which PDOs are protected under Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1234/2007 and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1308/2013. As a consequence, it is for the national courts to determine, on the case to case basis, whether such use is intended to take unfair advantage of the reputation of a PDO.

Further, the European Court noted that if the sorbet in question did not have, as an essential characteristic, a taste which is primarily attributable to champagne, it would equally be possible to conclude that the name ‘Champagner Sorbet’ on the inner or outer packaging of the product constituted a false or misleading indication and was therefore unlawful. A PDO is protected not only against false or misleading indications which are liable to create a false impression as to the origin of the product concerned, but also against false or misleading indications relating to the nature or essential qualities of the product. Where the PDO ‘Champagne’ is used directly, by being incorporated in the name of the product in question, to openly claim a gustatory quality connected with it, that does not amount to misuse, imitation or evocation within the meaning of EU rules on the protection of PDOs.


“THE PIRATE BAY” CASE: THE COURT OF JUSTICE DECIDES THAT THE ADMINS OF A TORRENT FILE SHARING PLATFORM ARE ALSO LIABLE FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

23/06/2017

With judgment of 14 June 2017 in case C-610/15, the Court of Justice held that the making available on the Internet of content downloaded by users amounts to a “communication to the public”, an activity that requires the authorization of the copyright holder.

 

Stichting Brein is a Netherlands association that represents and protects the interests of copyright holders. This was a case in which the association sued before the Dutch courts requesting a blocking injunction against Ziggo and XS4ALL, access providers whose members for the most part use the online sharing platform “The Pirate Bay”. The injunction was asked so as to block the domain names and IP addresses of “The Pirate Bay”, with a view to avoiding that the services offered by the above mentioned providers could be used to infringe the copyright of entities or individuals whose interests Stichting Brein was required to protect. Stichting Brein succeeded at first instance, but saw its claims dismissed on appeal.

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands referred the case to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling and asked whether there is communication to the public, pursuant to art. 3, para. 1 of Directive 2001/29, on part of an Internet website administrator, where the website concerned does not have any protected works on it but instead is based on a system in which metadata related to protected works stored on users’ computers is categorized and indexed in such a way as to allow other users to find, upload and download the aforesaid protected works. In this judgment the Court of Justice held that the provision and management of an online sharing platform such as “The Pirate Bay” must be considered an act of communication to the public pursuant to directive 2001/29 and therefore may be allowed only with the prior authorization of the copyright holder.

The Court also held that the administrators of “The Pirate Bay” are not involved in a “mere provision” of physical equipment but instead carry out an essential role in the making available of protected works. Indeed, they act with full knowledge of the consequences of their behaviour, with the objective of providing access to the works and indexing and listing the “torrent files” that allow users to find the works and share them in a peer-to-peer exchange with and between other users. Moreover, communication of this sort concerns an indefinite number of potential recipients and extends to a significant number of people, as the administrators of “The Pirate Bay” themselves declared on the website.

Finally, the Court held that it was indisputable that the making available and the management of an online sharing platform, such as that of the main proceedings, were carried out with a view to profit, given that the aforesaid platform also produced considerable amounts of advertising revenue.


CAUSA C-527/15 Stichting Brein v Jack Frederick Wullems: LA CORTE DI GIUSTIZIA TORNA SULLA QUESTIONE DELLA COMUNICAZIONE AL PUBBLICO

10/05/2017

Secondo la Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea la nozione di “comunicazione al pubblico” di cui all’articolo 3 della direttiva 2001/29 ricomprende la vendita di un lettore multimediale nel quale sono state preinstallate estensioni contenenti collegamenti ipertestuali a siti web liberamente accessibili al pubblico e sui quali sono state messe a disposizione del pubblico opere tutelate dal diritto d’autore senza l’autorizzazione dei titolari di tale diritto. Inoltre, atti di riproduzione temporanea, effettuati per il tramite del lettore multimediale, di un’opera protetta dal diritto d’autore e ottenuta in streaming senza l’autorizzazione del titolare del diritto, non possono ritenersi coperti dall’eccezione di cui all’articolo 5 della medesima direttiva.

 

Il Sig. Wullems vendeva online diversi modelli di un lettore multimediale denominato “filmspeler”. Su tale lettore, il Sig. Wullems aveva installato un software open source che consentiva di aprire file in un’interfaccia facile da utilizzare tramite strutture di menù, e vi aveva integrato, senza modificarle, estensioni (add-ons) disponibili su Internet, concepite da terzi, alcune delle quali rinviavano specificamente a siti web nei quali venivano messe a disposizione degli internauti opere protette senza l’autorizzazione dei titolari del diritto d’autore.

Stichting Brein, una fondazione olandese che tutela gli interessi dei titolari del diritto d’autore, dapprima intimava al Sig. Wullems di cessare la vendita del lettore multimediale e, successivamente, procedeva a citarlo in giudizio dinanzi al Tribunale di Midden-Nederland sostenendo che, attraverso la vendita del lettore multimediale “filmspeler”, il Sig. Wullems avrebbe effettuato una “comunicazione al pubblico” in violazione dell’articolo 3 della direttiva 2001/29. Il Sig. Wullems per contro sosteneva che lo streaming di opere tutelate dal diritto d’autore provenienti da una fonte illegittima rientrava nell’eccezione di cui all’articolo 5, paragrafo 1, della medesima direttiva.

A seguito di rinvio pregiudiziale da parte del Tribunale olandese, la Corte di Giustizia, dopo aver richiamato la propria giurisprudenza sulla nozione di comunicazione al pubblico, stabiliva innanzitutto che nel caso di specie non si poteva parlare di una mera fornitura di un’attrezzatura fisica (i.e. il lettore multimediale) atta a rendere possibile o ad effettuare una comunicazione. Il Sig. Wullems, infatti, procedeva con piena cognizione delle conseguenze della sua condotta alla pre-installazione, nel lettore multimediale “filmspeler” che lui stesso vendeva, di estensioni che consentivano agli acquirenti di accedere a opere tutelate pubblicate su siti di streaming senza l’autorizzazione del titolare del diritto d’autore e di visualizzare tali opere sulla loro televisione. Poiché siffatta operazione consentiva di accertare il collegamento diretto tra i siti web che diffondevano le opere contraffatte e gli acquirenti di detto lettore multimediale, senza la quale questi ultimi potrebbero soltanto con difficoltà beneficiare delle opere tutelate, una simile attività non coincideva con la mera fornitura di un’attrezzatura fisica, di cui al considerando 27 della direttiva 2001/29.

Ciò premesso, la Corte osservava che la condotta del Sig. Wullems costituiva una “comunicazione al pubblico” in quanto il lettore multimediale “filmspeler” era stato acquistato da un numero considerevole di persone e, invero, la comunicazione riguardava un numero indeterminato di potenziali acquirenti di tale lettore che disponevano di una connessione Internet, sicché si poteva nella specie parlare di comunicazione ad un “pubblico”. Inoltre, riteneva la Corte che tale comunicazione era stata effettuata nei confronti di un “nuovo” pubblico che non era stato preso in considerazione dai titolari del diritto d’autore al momento in cui avevano autorizzato la comunicazione iniziale. Peraltro, nel caso di specie era pacifico che la vendita del lettore multimediale “filmspeler” era stata effettuata in piena cognizione della circostanza che le estensioni che contengono collegamenti ipertestuali preinstallati in detto lettore davano accesso a opere illegittimamente pubblicate su Internet. Anzi, nelle pubblicità relative a tale lettore multimediale si faceva specificamente presente che esso consentiva di guardare gratuitamente e con facilità, su uno schermo televisivo, materiale audiovisivo disponibile su Internet senza l’autorizzazione dei titolari del diritto d’autore.

Infine, la Corte di Giustizia ha statuito che atti di riproduzione temporanea, su un lettore multimediale come quello di cui al procedimento principale, di un’opera tutelata dal diritto d’autore, ottenuta via streaming su un sito web appartenente a un terzo che offre tale opera senza l’autorizzazione del titolare del diritto d’autore, non integravano i requisiti prescritti dalla direttiva 2001/29, di talché non era possibile qualificare la vendita del lettore multimediale come un “utilizzo legittimo” delle opere protette da parte del Sig. Wullems.


ITALY IS THE EUROPEAN NATION THAT STRUGGLES THE MOST WITH COUNTERFEITING, SAYS A RECENT OECD ./. EUIPO STUDY

21/04/2017

A recent study published by the OECD in collaboration with the EUIPO reveals data concerning the economic and social impact of the trade in pirated and counterfeit goods in the major economies of developed countries. Among European companies, Italian ones are the hardest hit from unlawful activities of pirating and counterfeiting.


 

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in concert with the European Union Intellectual Property Office, has published a recent study focusing on the economic and social impact of trading in counterfeit and pirated goods in the European Union. The data analysed by the European Offices clearly show that Italy is the hardest hit by trading in pirated and counterfeit goods, second only to the United States of America.

The European Offices analysed the outcomes of over a million seizures of pirated and counterfeit goods carried out by the customs offices across the World in the period 2011/2013. The main databases utilized for the present study are those provided by the World Customs Organisation (WCO), by the Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD) and by the US Department for Homeland Security (DHS). Moreover, several experts in matters of commerce and customs protection were interviewed.

The study shows that in 2013 the sale of counterfeit products exceeded 2.5% of world-wide sales of products, amounting to approximately 461 billion dollars. With regard to the European Union, in 2013 pirated and counterfeited products formed over 5% of importations, for a value of about 85 billion euros. Consequently, on the basis of the data that has been collected, the impact of counterfeiting and piracy on the economy of developed countries (such as the economy of the European Union) is double in comparison to that which affects the rest of the World. A vast range of products has been the object of counterfeiting and piracy activities. From the analysis of the data it emerges that any product to which IP assets may confer an additional value has become the target of counterfeiting. Among the most affected products are luxury items (for example, watches, perfumery and leather products) in addition to mass consumer products (toys, pharmaceutical products, cosmetics and food items).

The majority of brands are targeted by counterfeiting activities. However, it is worrying to find that, within the European Union, Italian companies are the most affected by such phenomenon, and globally are second only to US companies. On the other hand it is no surprise that China is the major exporter of counterfeit products towards the European Union. Moreover, counterfeit goods entering the European Union follow increasingly diversified and complex routes, taking advantage of transit stations where the right holder is prevented from taking immediate and effective action for the protection of his rights. This is due to the ability of counterfeiters who attempt to hide the original starting point of the goods and to the re-packaging and re-labelling of the products. Furthermore, it must be considered that while imported products are generally subjected to accurate inspections by the local customs authorities, goods in transit do not fall within the scope of the inspections and therefore are less likely to be intercepted. The preferred routes for global counterfeiting are Hong Kong, China and the United Arab Emirates.