2024

IPPT20240321, CJEU, Liberi editori e autori (LEA) v Jamendo
The freedom to provide services (article 56 TFEU), read in conjunction with the Collective Management Directive (2014) precludes legislation of a Member State which generally and absolutely excludes the possibility of independent management entities established in another Member State providing their copyright management services in that first Member State. Access by independent management entities to copyright management activities not exhaustively harmonised at Union level. Collective Management Directive does not preclude legislation of a Member State which generally and absolutely excludes the possibility of independent management entities established in another Member State providing their copyright management services in that first Member State. E-commerce Directive does not apply to management of copyright and neighboring rights. Management of copyright and neighboring rights does not fall within the scope of Services Directive 2006.

IPPT20240305, CJEU, Public.Resource.Org - Right to Know v Commissie
Harmonised toy safety standards are part of Union law by virtue of their legal effect - overriding public interest requires their disclosure. The Commission should have acknowledged, in the decision at issue, the existence of an overriding public interest, within the meaning of the last clause of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, arising from the principles of the rule of law, transparency, openness and good governance, and justifying the disclosure of the requested harmonised standards, since those standards form part of EU law owing to their legal effects.

IPPT20240227, CJEU, EUIPO v KaiKai

Neither Article 41 Community Designs Regulation nor Article 4 of the Paris Convention provides for a 12-month period for design priority rights. Art. 4 of the Paris Convention has no direct effect in the European Union. The right of priority for filing a Community design application is governed by Article 41 of Community Designs Regulation. General Court erred in law by directly applying Article 41(1) Community Designs Regulation to right of priority based on patent. Article 41 Community Designs Regulation does not permit an application for registration of a patent to form the basis of a right of priority for a subsequent application for registration of a Community design. Time limit for claiming a right of priority is six months, as expressly stated in Art 41 Community Designs Regulation. Under Article 4 Paris Convention, a claim of priority for a design application cannot be made on the basis of an earlier patent application. It follows from a common reading of Sections A and C of Article 4 that the subsequent application must relate to "the same subject matter" as the earlier application which forms the basis for the right of priority. The claimed right of priority is more than six months before the application and rightly denied, judgment under appeal set aside.

IPPT20240130, CJEU, RTI v Agcom
Promotional announcements for radio programmes broadcast on television channels are not tv channels' own announcements. Hourly limit for television publicity spots: promotional announcements for radio programmes broadcast on television channels belonging to the same corporate group are not, in principle, announcements about those television channels’ own programmes. That is not the case where the programmes which are the subject of those promotional announcements are dissociable from the principal activity of the radio station and the television broadcaster has editorial responsibility for those programmes.

IPPT20240125, CJEU, Audi v GQ
Trade mark infringement by spare part provided with a shape similar to the trade mark if its use may adversely affect one or more functions of the trade mark (article 9(2) and (3) EUTMR). That the third party who, without the authorisation of the car manufacturer who is the proprietor of a Union trade mark, imports and offers for sale spare parts - namely, grilles for the cars of that manufacturer - which contain an element designed to affix the emblem reproducing that trade mark and the shape of which is identical or similar to that trade mark, is using, in the course of trade, a sign in a manner liable to adversely affect one or more of the functions of that same trade mark, which is a matter for the national court to ascertain. Repair clause of Article 110 of the Community Design Regulation is not applicable by analogy to trade mark law. Restriction on trademark law for indicating the intended purpose of an accessory or spare part does not preclude an injunction regarding a grille with a component similar to the trade mark, regardless of whether it is technically possible to attach the trade mark to the grille without that component. (article 14(1)(c) EUTMR)

IPPT20240124, GCEU, LEGO v Delta Sport
The General Court upholds the validity of the protection of a Lego toy brick. Open configuration options. The General Court finds, on the basis of its case-law and adding to it, that a design is declared invalid only in the case where all its characteristics are excluded from protection. In this case, since some of the arguments made by Delta Sport Handelskontor concern only one of the characteristics amongst several upheld by EUIPO, those arguments must be held to be ineffective and, for that reason, dismissed. The General Court also finds that Delta Sport Handelskontor, which bears the burden of proof in this context, had not provided evidence capable of demonstrating that the design of the Lego toy brick does not meet certain conditions required in order to benefit from the exception protecting modular systems, namely novelty and individual character.

IPPT20240118, CJEU, HP v Senetic
Free movement of goods precludes that the burden of proof concerning exhaustion of the right conferred by a Union trade mark rests solely on the defendant in the infringement proceedings where the goods bearing that mark - which are not labelled in such a way as to enable third parties to identify the target market and which are distributed through a selective distribution network whose members may resell those goods only to other members of that network or to end users - were purchased by that defendant in the Union or in the EEA after the sellers had given an assurance that those goods could be lawfully placed on the market there, and the trade mark proprietor refused to carry out that verification himself at the request of the purchaser.

IPPT20240111, CJEU, Mylan v Gilead
Article 9(7) of the Enforcement Directive does not preclude strict liability-based national legislation which provides for a mechanism for compensation for any injury caused by a provisional measure in the context of which the court is entitled to adjust the amount of damages by taking into account the circumstances of the case, including whether the defendant played a part in the occurrence of the injury.

IPPT20240111, CJEU, Inditex v Buongiorno
Use of a trademark for the purpose of identifying or referring to goods or services is allowed when such use is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of the product (a gift card). Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that it covers use of the trade mark in the course of trade by a third party for the purpose of identifying or referring to, in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, goods or services as those of the proprietor of that trade mark only when such use of the trade mark is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product marketed by that third party or of a service offered by that party.