In a decision that extends the law of geographical indications into the territory of the UK tort of passing off, the District Court of Hamburg (the ‘Court’) has prohibited the use of ‘Glen’ in the name of a whisky that did not originate from Scotland on the basis of the geographical indication protection associated with ‘Scotch Whisky’ . Continue reading
Herbert Smith Freehills has been lauded a ‘class act’, after it was ranked highly in the 2019 edition of World Trademark Review (WTR) 1000.
Now in its ninth year, the WTR 1000 highlights firms and individuals that are deemed outstanding in this area of practice.
Herbert Smith Freehills has been showcased in the research directory as being ‘a formidable force within the trademark sphere’ and a ‘prestigious commercial outfit’, after it was highlighted for having particularly strong trademark experience globally in WTR 1000. The firm’s practices in the UK, Australia, France and Italy were all highly ranked in the directory.
The publication singles out the firm for being “packed to the rafters with world-class talent that consistently exceeds the expectations of clients”.
WTR cites the “hands-on leadership” of Joel Smith, UK Head of IP as crucial to the side’s recent growth and success and goes on to highlight Joel as “a brilliant strategic thinker” flagging his work for major brands alongside much-praised Paris Partner Alexandra Neri on cross-border trade mark disputes.
Global Head of IP Mark Shillito is lauded as an “exquisite complex problem solver and litigator” and Laura Orlando has also been showcased, after she helped set up our growing Milan office in late 2017. She is flagged for her, “super pragmatic and business oriented” approach, which makes her one of the “best IP lawyers in Italy”.
Celia Davies, who heads Herbert Smith Freehills’ Trademarks prosecution group in Australia, is “a true leader in the trademark market”. Melbourne Partner Shaun McVicar has also been held up as possessing a “commercial and strategic outlook on litigation” which means that brands are in “good hands when he is on a case.” Partner Sue Gilchrist is also singled out as being a “top-flight litigator” and Kristin Stammer as an “eminent adviser with terrific technical trademark knowledge”.
In its write-up of the firm’s trade mark practice, WTR comments, “Herbert Smith Freehills isn’t about being the biggest in trademarks; it focuses, instead, on quality and adding strategic value for blue-chip international rights holders – and routinely surpasses expectations in both regards.”
As with previous editions, to arrive at the 2019 rankings, WTR undertook an exhaustive qualitative research project to identify the firms and individuals that are deemed outstanding in this critical area of practice. The publication says that when identifying the leading firms, factors such as depth of expertise, market presence and the level of work on which they are typically instructed were all taken into account, alongside positive peer and client feedback.
To view the full write-up, please visit: https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/directories/wtr1000
Clarity and precision in a trade mark description are the winners in the Court of Appeal
Cadbury’s attempt to argue its trade mark registration for the colour purple was actually a series mark which could be split and partially maintained was rejected yesterday by the Court of Appeal. Although another blow in Cadbury’s multi-decade, hard-fought attempt to trade mark the colour purple for chocolate bars in the UK, the decision helps to maintain clarity and certainty on the trade marks register.
Key take away: If you are applying for a trade mark, then it is important that the monopoly you are claiming is clear and precise – especially if your mark is ‘unusual’, such as a colour or shape mark. To be successful, the trade mark application should not be able to be interpreted in multiple different ways.
The latest tranche of “no deal” technical notices was released yesterday afternoon by the UK Government. Amongst them are several notices that highlight the Brexit issues faced by intellectual property right owners and, in some cases, confirm the Government’s approach to resolving them. The Government also released this news story today which comments on the guidance given in the technical notices and comments on the Government’s longer term aims for IP protection.
Key announcements, in the context of no deal, are:
- Provision of a new right to replace unregistered Community design rights, to be known as “the supplementary unregistered design right“.
- Existing EUTMs and Community registered designs will be replaced with new, equivalent rights in the UK at the end of the implementation/transition period, “with minimal administrative burden“.
- The SPC, compulsory licensing, pharmaceutical product testing exception and patenting of biotechnological inventions regimes will remain unchanged at least initially.
- If the UPC comes into force the UK will replace unitary patent rights with equivalent rights if the UK needs to withdraw from the new system, although the UK “will explore whether it is possible to remain within it“. The Government’s news story states that “The UK intends to stay in the Unified Patent Court and unitary patent system after we leave the EU.”
- UK originating sui generis database rights will no longer be enforceable in the EEA; “UK owners may want to consider relying on other forms of protection (e.g. restrictive licensing agreements or copyright where applicable) for their databases“
- The UK will set up its own GI scheme “which will be WTO TRIPS compliant“. The new rights “will broadly mirror the EU regime and be no more burdensome to producers“. Since the UK would no longer be required to recognise EU GI status, EU producers would be able to apply for UK GI status. Those wishing to protect UK GIs in the EU will need to submit applications on a third country basis.
- The UK will continue to accept the exhaustion of IP rights in products put on the market in the EEA by, or with the consent of, the rights holder. However, the EU will likely not consider that goods placed on the UK market are exhausted in the EEA, and thus permission may need to be sought from the rights holder to transfer goods to the EEA that have legitimately been put on the market in the UK. The Government news story says that “The UK looks forward to exploring arrangements on IP cooperation that will provide mutual benefits to UK and EU rights holders and we are ready to discuss issues the EU wishes to raise in the negotiations on our future relationship, including exhaustion of IP rights”.
Links to the notices:
More detail on each of these is provided below. For those with an interest in Life Sciences please also see our blog post on the notices related to that sector that were released last month.
On 25 July 2018, Advocate General Wathelet issued his opinion in an interesting case pending before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) (C-310/17) concerning copyright over the taste of a food product.
The AG took the view that EU law precludes the taste of food from being protected by copyright, essentially because:
- the notion of “literary and artistic works” in the Berne Convention includes only subject-matter that can be perceived through sight or hearing, therefore implicitly excluding those perceivable through other senses like taste, smell or touch; and
- artistic works should be identified in a precise and objective manner in order to allow third parties to understand their scope of protection. This is not the case for the taste of food products.
This case is particularly interesting as it is the first time that the CJEU will rule on the copyright of the taste of a food product and, more generally, on the notion of copyright work which is not defined under Directive 2001/29/EC (“InfoSoc Directive”).
Food scientists in major food businesses may be disappointed not to obtain a new layer of protection for creating new tastes.
The opinion of the AG confirms the difficulty of ensuring copyright protection for the taste of a food product, as well as for perfumes, as observed in the field of trade marks. Even though the new EU Trade Mark Regulation does not require a sign (any longer) to be capable of being graphically represented in order to be registered as a trade mark, in practice it is not yet possible to register a taste or a smell as a trade mark as the subject-matter of protection cannot be determined with clarity and precision with generally available technology.
If the CJEU were to follow the opinion of the AG in its Judgment, many producers of food products and perfumes will remain disappointed that their creative efforts are not recognised by legal protection through copyright. Continue reading
The Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018 (the “Regulations”) came into force on 9 June 2018 and transpose Directive (EU) 2016/943 (the “Directive”) into UK law.
- The aim of the Directive is to create a level playing field by harmonising this area of law across the EU.
- The UK already has well-developed legal protection for trade secrets governed by common law breach of confidence and by contract law.
- A trade secret holder may now apply for remedies under breach of confidence in addition to or as an alternative to remedies under the Regulations.
- Changes mainly concern limitation periods, procedural issues for the courts when hearing cases in relation to trade secrets and certain remedies.
Businesses should continue to take steps to ensure that trade secrets are kept confidential and with limited access. This should be reflected in company policies, procedures and contractual provisions.
In a blow for rights-holders, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has today decided that ISPs should not bear the implementation costs for website blocking orders in Cartier International AG and others v British Telecommunications Plc and another  UKSC 28. Whilst the UKSC has endorsed the availability of blocking orders for rights-holders, it has reversed the costs position, finding that rights-holders should indemnify the ISPs for the reasonable costs of implementing the orders.
This is a very important case in relation to the ability of brand owners and others to obtain blocking injunctions against intermediaries, such as ISPs to prevent third party website operators offering infringing or counterfeit branded products. The UKSC decided the pivotal question of who should bear the cost of implementing blocking orders, in terms of deploying monitoring, filtering and web blocking technology – the ISP or the brand owner?
We examine the options available to tackle IP infringements online, such as the sale of counterfeit goods, with a focus on the most powerful weapon for rights holders – blocking junctions from the courts. We also provide some practical tips to help tackle and combat online infringements.
In the latest draft of the Withdrawal Agreement (19 March 2018) the UK Government and European Commission negotiators appear to have agreed text providing for the replacement of EU-wide IP rights having effect in the UK with equivalent UK rights at the end of the transition period post-Brexit (until 31 December 2020). Further, during the transition period, EU-wide rights will still apply to the UK due to the effect of Article 122 which provides that EU law will be applicable to the UK during the transition period and that it will produce the same legal effects in respect of and in the UK as those which is produces within the EU and its Member States and shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the same methods and general principles, and that during the transition period, any reference to Member States in EU law shall be understood as including the UK.
Other IP related measures include provision for dealing with: exhaustion of rights, pending applications, international registrations designating the EU and the effect of invalidity proceedings that are “on foot” at the end of the transition period, (see Articles 50-57). Certain provisions (highlighted in green) are now listed as agreed between negotiators, whilst others are still just proposals from the Commission (those un-highlighted) including those on GIs, SPCs and who pays the administration costs involved.
There are still unresolved issues for those who hold IP rights in the EU and those who license (in or out) EU-wide IP rights or have agreements linked to the “EU” as territory, which we discuss below.
Despite the areas of current agreement, there remains the possibility of a “no deal” scenario in relation to the whole agreement, in which case none of the areas agreed would stand (although the UK Government could make separate arrangements to create equivalent rights at the moment of Brexit). Anything agreed between the Commission and the UK under the Withdrawal Agreement needs European Council approval and then European Parliament approval. Thus, although a good start has been made on agreeing the post-Brexit fate of EU-wide IP rights currently having effect in the UK, the final arrangements are still far from certain. Indeed, if the Withdrawal Agreement is not accepted then there will be no transition period at all and a “hard” Brexit will come into effect on 30 March 2019, with all that implies for IP rights (see our comments from January 2017 here).
In summary, the proposals in the revised Withdrawal Agreement, and problems associated with them, are:
Drawing on our practitioners’ experience and understanding of the intellectual property and technology issues facing our clients in the fast changing world in which we all now do business, we made innovation and disruptive technology the key themes at our 2018 IP Update Conference.
Described by one attendee as “The perfect mixture of commercial and legal content”, the event was held in our London offices in February 2018. We were joined by over 140 clients from the Technology, Banking, Consumer, Energy, Manufacturing, Media, Pharmaceutical & Healthcare, and Telecommunications sectors.
Click here for a briefing summarising the legal and commercial issues raised by the Herbert Smith Freehills presenters and our keynote speaker Kevin Mathers, Country Director at Google UK.
Our keynote speaker, Kevin Mathers, set the scene by discussing the current technological landscape for innovation and how Google looks at the future. Taking examples of how artificial intelligence, augmented reality and virtual reality are already being used by Google and looking at the major trends which will dictate our digital future. Kevin’s presentation was a great success, with attendees describing it as “really insightful and inspirational”; “engaging and interesting” and “stimulating and thought-provoking”.
The conference continued with sessions on
- tackling the impact of AI on your business,
- on-line risk,
- open innovation,
- interoperability and product standards, and
- targeted advertising and the GDPR.
There was also a panel session at the end of the conference to discuss the issues facing businesses in relation to disruptive technology with contributions from partners and of counsel across the IP and IT practice areas and from several of our European offices.
Clients were impressed by the range of issues presented by the speakers and the practical approaches offered.