The CJEU’s Advocate-General (‘AG’) has delivered his Opinion that a registered trade mark cannot be declared invalid solely due to the terms used in the mark’s specification lacking ‘sufficient’ clarity and precision. However, this statement came with the substantial caveat that a lack of clarity and precision in the specification could cause the application/registration to fall within the ‘contrary to public policy’ provision, which is a ground for refusal or invalidity of EU and national trade marks. The Opinion also considered ‘intention to use’ and concluded that applying for registration of a trade mark with no intention to use it in connection with specified goods or services, could constitute an element of bad faith (bad faith itself a ground for refusal of registration & invalidity). The AG’s Opinion follows a reference to the CJEU in the case Sky v SkyKick from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (‘the Court’).
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.
This is a further case which reinforces the importance and strength to rights holders of the right to communicate a copyright work to the public provided by Article 3 of the Copyright Directive (2001/29). The CJEU held that a cloud based remote recording service amounted to a communication to the public and could not fall under the private copy exemption, which was to be interpreted strictly, and therefore the rights holders’ consent was required. (Case – 265/16 VCAST v RTI SpA.).
- This decision is good news for rights holders, as they will be able to take action against service providers who do more than simply provide copying services to users who are in turn relying upon a private copying exemption.
- The CJEU decision reiterates Reha Training (C-117/15) that the communication to the public is a key right which enables rights holders to exert control over their copyright works if a service provider provides a new and different technical means of transmission to a new public for which there is no consent.
- The case gives guidance to those providing recording services via the internet and cloud storage, and to rights holders, as to where the boundaries are to be drawn, and confirms the CJEU approach that the exceptions to copyright which can be provided by the Member States will be interpreted narrowly.
- Whilst the UK has no private copying exception enacted, the case provides a useful reminder of the CJEU’s strict approach to interpretation of exceptions to copyright.
- The VCAST decision continues the CJEU’s line of cases where interpretation of communication to the public has been interpreted broadly. In April we gave an update on the CJEU guidance on communication to the public following the Filmspeler decision (C-527/15) which was then applied in The Pirate Bay (C-610/16) (reported here). Similarly in the VCAST decision, the CJEU was clear that the provision of the service via the internet and cloud storage where initial broadcast was on territorial TV was sufficient to infringe, if the rights holder had not consented.
Following on from its recent decision in Filmspeler, the CJEU has handed down its judgment in Stichting Brein v Ziggo, C-610/15 (The Pirate Bay), concluding that operators of the online sharing platforms are making a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of the InfoSoc Directive, and hence an actionable infringement.
The CJEU has issued its ruling in Filmspeler that the sale of a multimedia player specifically configured to link to websites on which protected works are made available to internet users, without the consent of the copyright holders, is a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of the InfoSoc Directive, and hence an actionable infringement.
This decision follows a number of CJEU decisions in which the meaning of ‘communication to the public’ has been discussed and broadens the potential group of defendants who might now be regarded a primarily liable for unauthorised acts of ‘communication to the public’ to those who sell piracy-enabled set-top boxes, such as those supplied with software like the neutral Kodi streaming platform, to which add-ons have been installed, designed to receive protected works (such as films, TV shows or live sports) that are made available to internet users without the consent of the copyright holders, with minimal input from the end user.
ITV & Others v TVCatchup: CJEU Rules S.73 CDPA defence not applicable to online streaming of live broadcasts.
The CJEU has issued its ruling on the latest question referred to it in the long-running dispute between ITV (and others) and TVCatchup, as to whether Article 9 of the InfoSoc Directive permits the UK to retain the defence contained in section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (which permits retransmission of a broadcast by cable to users in the area to which the original broadcast was made). As such, TVCatchup cannot legally provide live streaming of free-to-air broadcasts via the internet in the UK.