UK government introduced The Trade Marks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 under the powers of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018(EUWA).

As a consequence, in case of a “no deal” Brexit, EU trademark rights will however continue to be protected in UK.

These are very good news for EU trademark owners!

From exit day, all existing registered EUTMs will be treated as if they had been applied for and registered under UK law.

For all registered EUTMs comparable UK trademarks will be created, which will be recorded on the UK register.

These UK rights will retain the filing dates recorded against the corresponding EUTMs and will also inherit any priority and/or seniority dates.

They will be fully independent UK trade marks which can be challenged, assigned, licensed or renewed, separately from the original EUTM.

Comparable rights will be created at no cost to the EUTM holder, and with as little administrative burden as possible.

If you hold a pending EUTM application on exit day, you will be able to apply for a domestic UK application.

To claim the earlier EU filing and/or priority date, the UK application must be submitted within nine months of exit day. The trade mark will then be treated as a UK application, and examined under UK law.

We will keep you informed on the developments regarding community and international designs and international trademarks designating the EU in due time.

Please do not hesitate to contact us for more information and the admintrative measures to be performed to keep your EU trademarks alive after Brexit.

Marie-Christine Simon 

Office Freylinger a le plaisir d’annoncer la 4e édition de la journée thématique

La propriété intellectuelle, en pratique

qui se tiendra le 19 mars 2019 à l’Abbaye de Neumünster.

Six ateliers vous sont proposés abordant notamment la gestion de la PI dans les projets innovants, l’accompagnement des Start-up, le management de la PI, la protection du logiciel et la fiscalité de la PI.

Cette journée sera également l’occasion d’échanger entre participants, notamment au cours du lunch et du networking snack de cloture.

Programme détaillé et inscriptions sur le site de notre partenaire Paperjam Club.

Infos pratiques:
Date: 19 mars 2019
Horaires: 9h00 – 16h00, y compris lunch & snack
Lieu: Abbaye de Neumünster, Luxembourg  (Parking Saint Esprit)

The 1st of March 2019 marks the entry into force of the amended Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property. Being considered as a cornerstone in the harmonisation of trademark law at European level (cf. Directive 2015/2436 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to trademarks), the amendments aim at modernizing and simplifying procedures.

Some of the most important changes pave the way for:

• the registration of non-graphical trademarks such as sound marks;
• listing the goods and services covered by a trademark in a clear and precise way;
• an extension of grounds for opposition and cancellation procedures; and
• a system for registration of certification marks to name only a few.

Although the focus of the amended Convention clearly lies on the strengthening of the rights of trademark owners, some limitations and defense mechanism have as well been enshrined such as the possibilities for action against the use of a trademark in comparative advertising and measures against counterfeit goods in transit. Moreover, the possibilities for the defendant to request proof of genuine use are extended. Owners of collective trademarks may, during a transitional period, transform their trademarks into certification marks, if applicable.

Marie-Christine SIMON

For more details, please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to hearing from you.

Changes to German trademark law

This Monday, 14 January 2019, marks an important day in the history of the German Trademark Law (“MarkenG”) due to the entering into force of the German Trademark Modernisation Act (“MaMoG”). In the name of legal harmonization within the EU, the latter will entail significant changes in an attempt to strengthen the rights of trademark owners.

We have outlined below the most important changes:

First, the most categorical change is precisely that – the introduction of a new category of trademarks. Known as a guarantee or certification mark, this new category acts like a seal of excellence whereby a trademark owner guarantees to the general public that the product or service provided has a certain characteristic or quality such as the manner of manufacture. As with all trademarks, an element of distinction is necessary: the mark must allow the covered products to stand out from products for which there is no guarantee. Likewise, the quality or characteristic being guaranteed must be clear from first sight. From a procedural point of view, the trademark must be designated as a guarantee or certification mark at the time of registration. This category could hence be of particular interest to businesses where the added value is found in a specific characteristic of the product or manufacturing method.

Secondly, the new law introduces the possibility to register a trademark based solely on a sign that is clear and definable, without necessarily requiring a graphical representation. This opens the door to new types of trademarks such as holograms, sound and multimedia brands. However, since WIPO still requires a two-dimensional graphic, this advancement will not be matched on the international stage for the time being.

Last but not least, the new German trademark law foresees various adjustments regarding opposition proceedings. To name only the most significant ones, as of 14 January 2019, the owner of several older rights can assert these rights by filing a single opposition. Moreover, in the future it will be possible to introduce an opposition based on protected geographical indications and indications of origin. Following the European approach, the new system will provide for a cooling-off period of two months which can be granted at the joined request of both parties and is extendable. However, the opposition fee will be adjusted to this new system.

In view of these numerous changes, please do not hesitate to contact us for further information. We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Marie-Christine SIMON

Start-up, découvrez notre package

Les fondateurs de start-up font face sur tous les fronts et la propriété intellectuelle (PI) a tendance à être perçue comme non prioritaire. Pourtant la PI est un actif précieux d’une jeune société technologique; elle représente un accélérateur et une sécurisation de leur croissance.

Office Freylinger a élaboré un package start-up qui prévoit un accompagnement sur les différents aspects PI auxquels les start-up sont confrontées.   Contactez-nous !

Quelques conseils à l’attention des start-up.

1. Assurez-vous d’être propriétaire de votre PI

Nombre d’acteurs interviennent autour d’une start-up et peuvent contribuer à sa PI. En outre, l’innovation intervient souvent en amont de la création de la société. Tous ces éléments créent des facteurs de risque sur la titularité de cette PI. Or il est essentiel qu’une start-up en soit propriétaire. Elle pourra prendre les démarches suivantes:

• Transfert à la société de la PI créé avant la constitution, par un accord écrit, ou au moyen d’un apport en nature;
• Tous les employés doivent être tenus à la confidentialité et les personnes employées pour effectuer de la R&D auront une mission inventive dans leur contrat de travail;
• Encadrement contractuel des relations avec les sous-traitants en prévoyant la cession de la PI développée pour le compte de la start-up. En effet, il est très courant que les logiciels (y compris les applications web) soient développés, partiellement ou totalement, par des partenaires externes. Il est alors indispensable d’effectuer un transfert des droits d’auteur et des autres droits liés au profit de la structure qui aura conçu, initié (et financé) le développement;
• Avec les partenaires, mise en place de contrats de développement qui prévoient notamment le sort des inventions développées conjointement.

 2. Optez pour un ou plusieurs modes de protection

Le brevet n’est pas le seul moyen de protection. En pratique, on combine souvent plusieurs droits pour protéger un objet donné.

C’est particulièrement le cas avec les logiciels et applications, qui nécessitent une protection multiple afin que leur propriétaire puisse intervenir efficacement contre les tiers qui copieraient ou s’inspireraient de ce programme informatique (voir notre article en annexe).

Il importe d’être conscient de sa PI et de prendre une décision sur le mode de protection à chaque stade de développement.

Les outils classiques à disposition sont:

• Brevets : protection des innovations techniques, y compris lorsque mises en œuvre par ordinateur;
• Droits d’auteur : pour les œuvres de l’esprit originales telles que publicités, livres, musiques, films et logiciels;
• Marques : protection du nom d’une société, de son logiciel et de ses produits ou services;
• Dessins et modèles : protègent l’apparence des objets, mais également utilisables pour les écrans, et ainsi protéger l’ergonomie et le «look-and-feel» d’un logiciel;
• Secrets d’affaires : protection basée sur la non-divulgation. Attention, la protection par le secret nécessite la mise en place de mesures destinées à conserver le secret! (cf. Directive UE 2016/943)

3. Bien gérer son portfolio

Une bonne connaissance de votre PI et des moyens de protection est importante vis-à-vis d’investisseurs et partenaires. Il faudra périodiquement fournir des listes des actifs de PI détenus. Dans ce contexte, une bonne pratique consiste à stocker systématiquement les informations dans une data room en ligne. On pourra y conserver les données relatives aux dépôts de brevets et aux autres droits de PI, les documents contractuels, les copies des dépôts de logiciel, etc., mais également effectuer un suivi des coûts.

La plateforme FiveOsixK  offre une solution efficace à prix abordable. Elle facilite également la revue de portefeuille, activité requise au moins une fois par an pour prendre des décisions sur le maintien des droits et faire vivre les contrats.

4. Attention à l’open source

Une start-up peut décider d’incorporer des modules open source dans son logiciel, ce qui permet d’accélérer le développement et est souvent gratuit.

Mais attention, open source ne signifie pas libre de droits !

L’usage d’open source implique l’acceptation de licences qui reposent sur quatre libertés fondamentales: exécuter le programme, l’étudier, l’adapter et le redistribuer. Il est donc recommandé de lire en détail les termes des licences open source.

À l’extrême, l’incorporation de modules open source dans un logiciel propriétaire développé par une start-up peut transformer ce dernier en logiciel open source. La start-up pourrait se voir dans l’obligation de distribuer à ses utilisateurs les modifications ultérieures ainsi que le code source confidentiel.

Il est donc recommandé d’établir des règles strictes sur l’emploi d’open source au sein de la start-up.

Li Keqiang, Premier of the People’s Republic of China, has recently confirmed the wish of the Chinese authorities and jurisdictions to adopt stricter measures for protection of intellectual property rights.

http://english.sipo.gov.cn/news/officialinformation/1132268.htm

Indeed the CTMO (Chinese Trademark Office Office) has refused more than 16 000 trademark applications based on the grounds that there is no intent of actual use for such preemptive applications which are filed for improper profits by trademark squatters.

Accordingly the risk of refusal for a new trademark application in China based on prior similar or identical preemptive trademarks should considerably be reduced in the future. The case being, such a refusal should also be more easily overcome by filing an invalidation action against the cited preemptive trademarks.

Unofficial sources have already mentioned that the average success rate of invalidation cases has raised up to 60%, which represents an encouraging signal for foreign investors and should hopefully prevent Chinese trademark squatting in the future.

Active since decades in China, Office Freylinger has often been successful in China against counterfeiters and trademark squatters in the past.

Thanks to this positive attitude of the Chinese authorities, we will keep on protecting and enforcing our client’s rights more easily in China.

Feel free to contact us should you have any questions regarding IP protection in China or Asia.

Nathalie Cailteux

The reform of the Canadian TradeMarks Law will enter into force on June 17, 2019.

In view of the future accession of Canada to the Madrid Protocol and Nice Agreement, the changes include the use of the Nice Classification to categorize goods and services for the purposes of registering trademarks.

Clients who intend to protect their trademarks in multiple classes should file their applications before that date if they want to avoid the payment of additional fees for claiming several classes of products or services.

The reform abolishes the bases for filing a trademark application (real use or proposed use in Canada) and the requirement to file a Statement of Use in the course of the registration procedure.

Michèle Léonard

The Chinese Court of Guangzhou Yuexiu District has recently sentenced four Chinese companies to pay a fine of around 570.000 EUR for unfair competition and for having infringed LEGO’s copyrights. The four defendants liable for counterfeiting LEGO’s building sets and minifigures under the LEPIN sign are ordered to immediately stop producing and marketing said infringing products.

Niels B. Christiansen, the LEGO Group’s Chief Executive Office, is pleased to welcome this Court’s decision, which should considerably reduce the temptation to unlawfully copy LEGO’s products and which might play a great part in improving the fair business environment of China.

Press release: https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news-room/2018/november/lepin-case/

Nathalie Cailteux

The Luxembourg Intellectual Property Office has recently announced a change of practice concerning the language requirements for PCT national phases in Luxembourg.
English is now also accepted for the proceedings in the national phase, similar to a direct national application.

The new situation can thus be summarized as follows.

• If the international patent application was not published by the International Bureau in the English, French or German language, a full translation of the international patent application into French or German is required.
• However, if the publication of the international patent application is in English, a translation of the claims only into French or German is required (the description need not be translated).

As a reminder, the time limit for entering the national phase is twenty months from the filing/priority date under PCT Article 22 or thirty months from the filing/priority date under PCT Article 39(1).

The European patent accademy held a conference on the above subject in Luxembourg on 8 October  2018. The morning panels adressed issues of applicable law in outer space.

The main international instrument is the outer space treaty of 1967.

According to article II of the Treaty, outer space is not subject to national appropriation by any means.

However, the State that launches a space object retains jurisdiction and control over that object. The State is also liable for damages caused by their space object.

Numerous examples were given about inventions born from space technologies.

To the surprise of the audience, ESA representatives indicated that no invention has ever been reported to have been made in outer space.

It appears that facilities such as the ISS are to be seen as a test lab. Inventions are made on the ground, by analysing the data obtained in outer space.

Also to note is that patent applications in the space field have doubled between 2007 and 2017. The big players are located in the US, France, Germany and Italy.
On big topic at the moment concerns the removal of debris.

Luxembourg Space Law

Pr. Mahulena Hofmann (SES Chair in Space, SatCom and Media Law, University of Luxembourg) talked about Luxembourg’s space law.

In August 2017 Luxembourg was the first European state to adopt a space exploration law.

Philippe Ocvirk

There is no likelihood of confusion with your earlier national non-registered sign when you’re economically linked to the owner of the posterior trademark.

The General Court annuled in its decision of 25 September 2018 the Board of Appeal’s decision, that confirmed the invalidity of the EUTM no. 3324902 , considering that there does not exist a likelihood of confusion between the earlier French company name Gugler France and the opposed EUTM , in the light of Art. 8 (4) EUTMR.

This decision puts an end to a longlasting trademark conflict that started back in 2010 with the cancellation action filed by the French company Gugler France against the registration of the EUTM, invoking its rights on the company name under French law according to Art. 8 (4) EUTMR. The case has already been handled before the General Court in 2013/2014 (case T-674/13) and at that time, the General Court held in January 2016 that the Board of Appeal infringed its obligation to state reasons and the case was referred back to the office.

Only in January 2017, the Board of Appeal decided the case and dismissed the appeal, by confirming the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the earlier national company name and the challenged EUTM .

In its pleadings before the General Court, the trademark owner particularly referred to the complex situation existing between the parties and indicated that there could not have been any likelihood of confusion for the consumers, considering the close business relationship existing between them.

Indeed, the parties of the proceedings before the EUIPO were in intensive business relationship for almost than 10 years before the breakdown of the same for economic reasons in 2009.

In its current decision, the General Court confirmed the importance of the function of origin of a trademark, i.e. the possiblity for the consumers to identify the origin of the goods and services offered under a trademark. A likelihood of confusion exists, if the consumer might believe by error that there exists an economic linc between the owner of the trademark and the goods and services provided under the earlier sign. In case of a cancellation action, the relevant point in time to be taken into consideration for the existence of a likelihood of confusion is the filing date of the challenged trademark. In the present case, the business relationship existing between the parties before the EUIPO did not make the consumers believe by error that the companies using the GUGLER sign in France, i.e. the French company Gugler France and the owner of the challenged EUTM , as they were in fact economically linked, the French company being the distributor of the trademark owner’s goods in France.

As a consequence, the consumer, even if they believe that the companies were economically linked, would not be conducted in error as to the origin of the goods at stake, considering that the goods originate from the EUTM owner and were distributed by the French company Gugler France.

The Court confirmed that the consumer must not be aware of the economic link between the two companies, because the likelihood of confusion is to be asessed objectively.

The economic link between the owner of the prior national sign and the owner of the challenged trademark on the date on which the application for registration of the EUTM was filed, consequently precluded the finding of a likelihood of confusion.

The General Court has thus -finally- closed the windows of this complex and longlasting trademark conflict and cleared up the situation, annuling the appeal decision and consequently allowing the challenged EUTM “GUGLER” to remain registered.

Marie-Christine Simon

L’IPIL reconduit son cycle “Les Afterworks de la Propriété Intellectuelle” et propose trois dates:

• 11 Octobre à 18h: Valoriser la créativité dans l’artisanat !
• 16 Octobre à 18h: Entrepreneurs : Maîtrisez la propriété intellectuelle à l’ère du digital !
• 24 Octobre à 18h: La propriété intellectuelle en pratique dans les projets hightech (avec la participation de Pierre Kihn de l’Office Freylinger).

Informations et inscriptions, cliquez ici.