Watch out our short film (in French):

Office Freylinger protects your intellectual property!

The decision taken on September 07, 2015 by the Benelux Office (full decision here) in the opposition proceedings filed by eBay Inc. against the Benelux trademark application N°1245888 “Sportbay” shows the limits of a famous trademark.

Although well-known trademarks may under certain conditions claim wider protection for uncovered products and services, the Benelux Office has considered that the repute of “eBay” could not prevent the registration of the trademark “Sportbay” for products and services which are not protected by the trademarks “eBay”.

Despite the fact that a certain level of similarity between the signs “eBay” and “Sportbay” has been outlined, the BOIP considers that the risk of confusion between both signs remains limited to identical goods and services.

As a consequence, the trademark “Sportbay” will be registered in classes 22, 25, 28 as well as for services in class 35 which are not protected by the trademarks “eBay”.

Nathalie Cailteux

A New interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 13(1)

The European Court of Justice rendered a decision on the 6.10.2015 in Case C‑471/14, Seattle Genetics Inc. v Österreichisches Patentamt,

The Court ruled that Article 13(1) of Regulation No 469/2009 is to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the [European Union]’ within the meaning of that provision is the date on which notification of the decision granting marketing authorisation was given to the addressee of the decision.

In particular it is thus not the date of the decision that must be taken into consideration but the date this decision was notified to the applicant.

Click here for the full decision.

A lot of SPCs need to have their duration recalculated.

Pierre KIHN

On 18 March 2015, the Luxembourg Parliament approved the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Upon signature by the Grand Duke and ratification, Luxembourg will join the 6 EU states that are already formally in the game (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Malta and Sweden).

The creation of the Unified Patent Court is a major evolution for patent enforcement. It will be competent for infringement and nullity actions for both classical European Patents and European Patents with unitary effect. A patentee will thus be able to enforce his rights in all the member States though a single court action.

Luxembourg is in the heart of the new system: the Court of Appeal of the UPC and the Courts’ Registry will be located in Luxembourg. Of course, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is also located in Luxembourg, and will have the final say on any points of European law referred by the Unified Patent Court.

Furthermore, Luxembourg is centrally located between the Paris and Munich sections of the Central Division of the UPC, and the Munich and The Hague offices of the European Patent Office.

Philippe OCVIRK

Fort du succès de 2013, Office Freylinger organise la 2ème édition de la journée thématique

La propriété intellectuelle, en pratique

le 5 mars 2015 de 9h à 16h à l’ Abbaye de Neumünster.

L’intérêt pour la propriété intellectuelle ne faiblit pas. Chaque entreprise cherche à protéger ses créations, à valoriser des recherches, à profiter des incitations fiscales.
L’actualité récente démontre l’intérêt des utilisateurs et pouvoirs publics : brevet unitaire, directive secrets d’affaires, protection du logiciel et des marques.

De 8h30 à 16h00, six ateliers vous sont proposés sur les différents thèmes de la PI tels que : détection/appropriation, brevet unitaire européen, logiciels et internet, licensing, valorisation et fiscalité (article 50 bis).

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

The European Commission, represented by Office Freylinger S.A. before the OHIM filed on behalf of the European Space Agency (ESA) a semi-figurative Community trademark application “GALILEO” for the following services in class 42 “Research and development in the field of satellite radio navigation”.

Both the Opposition Division and Board of Appeal rejected the opposition filed by Galileo International Technology LLC on the basis of two earlier Community trademarks “GALILEO” filed for classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42.

Action was finally brought by the opponent against the decision of the First Board of Appeal before the General Court.

Yet the applicant’s arguments – developed by Office Freylinger S.A. before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1423/2005-1) – also convinced the General Court.
Consequently the appeal filed by the opponent was dismissed since the European Commission’s covered services of research and development in the field of satellite radio navigation were definitively approved as being neither an industrial nor an economic activity aimed at the general public, but as simply focusing on scientific innovation.

It followed by the Judgement of the General Court on September 11, 2014 (Case T-450/11), that the Board of Appeal had rightly rejected the opposition filed by Galileo International Technology LLC since the goods and services between the trademarks at issue are to be considered as different.

Nathalie Cailteux

The Administrative council of the EPO decided on Thursday 17 October 2013 to revert to the former practice to allow the filing of divisionals as long as a patent application is pending.

As you know Rule 36 EPC entered into force on April 1, 2010 to basically restrict the filing of divisionals to 24 months from the first communication of the examining division (R.36(1)(a) EPC) or 24 months from a communication of new lack of unity (R.36(1)(b)) EPC. This change did not only put a huge monitoring burden on all parties without increasing legal certainty for third parties, but it also jeopardized the applicant’s rights to adequately protect its invention. For further details on the current situation please refer to our article here.

So, the Administrative Council fortunately decided to revert to former Rule 36(1) EPC which will read as follows:

R.36(1): The applicant may file a divisional application relating to
any pending earlier European patent application.

From April 1, 2014, a divisional may thus be filed for any pending patent application, be it a regular patent application or itself already a divisional. This will thus also apply to cases where there currently is no possibility to file a divisional because time limits of current R.36(1) have already expired, IF the application is still pending on April 1, 2014.

It has also been decided that for second or higher generation divisionals, increased fees would apply. Although the amounts of such fees have yet to be decided on, it seems that these costs will certainly not exceed the hidden monitoring costs of the current complicated regulation.

Office Freylinger will of course keep you current on further developments regarding the upcoming changes.

L’Office Freylinger étant un partenaire permanent des entreprises qui créent et innovent, la conférence « 10×6 : Recherche – Innovation : diversification » organisée par lepaperJam Business Club était un événement de choix pour le lancement de son concours Propriété Intellectuelle.

Le Prix Office Freylinger a pour but de récompenser la meilleure pratique en matière de protection par la propriété intellectuelle d’un projet de communication ou marketing.

Les concepts mis en œuvre dans ces projets sont des créations de l’esprit, et dès lors protégeables par les marques, les modèles et les droits d’auteur.
Peuvent être candidats:

• tous types de projet de communication ou de marketing (Campagne pub, télé, radio, ciné, Affiche, brochure, logo…)
• remis ou finalisé en 2012, ou en 2013 jusqu’à la date limite de remise des projets (14.06.2013)
• institutionnel ou privé

Il suffit de nous envoyer le questionnaire rempli (à télécharger ci-dessous) et le projet finalisé. Le dossier est à renvoyer par poste ou courriel (office@freylinger.com) avec la mention “Prix Office Freylinger”.

Les délais pour ce prix sont les suivants:

• lancement: 24 avril 2013
• date limite de remise des questionnaires: 14 juin 2013
• remise des prix: 18 septembre 2013

Prix à gagner :

• 1er prix : 1 Dépôt de marque Communautaire en 3 classes
• 2e prix : 1 Dépôt de marque Benelux en 3 classes
• 3e prix : 1 Recherche (similitude) de marque Benelux en 3 classes
• 4e prix : 1 iDépôt

With the launch of hundreds of new internet extensions (new GTLDs) planned this year, trademark owners will have to ask themselves the question how to protect their trademarks, amongst others against cybersquatting.

ICANN has established a process, called the “TradeMark Clearinghouse” (TMCH), which allows trademark owners:

1.    To input the data of their trademarks in a centralized database.
2.    To participate in priority registrations (Sunrise Periods) of all new extensions
3.    To be alerted (within a certain period of time) if a third party attempts to register a domain name identical to the mark.

The costs taxes for inserting a trademark in the TradeMark Clearinghouse are of approximately 350 € / year.

However, there are several elements of this TMCH, which limit its use:

1.    Alerts are limited to domain names identical with the trademark concerned. A minor amendment (adding a letter, a hyphen, etc.) suffice to avoid an alert.
2.    Receiving an alert does by no means hinders a third party to register the domain name. You will need to file URS-proceedings (similar to UDRP-Proceedings, i.e. specialised, specific arbitration proceedings for domain names) to obtain the control over the domain name concerned.
3.    The alert system will remain in force 90 days after the new extension has been launched. It is unclear whether the TMCH will remain in force afterwards or whether the registries will propose alternatives.

When is it interesting?

1.    When you want to remain updated of third parties registering domain names identical with your trademark in new extensions (during the Sunrise Period). Such will allow you to immediately take action, if necessary.

2.    When you are potentially interested in registering domain names corresponding to your trademark in one or several new extensions. Once you have inserted your trademark in the TMCH database, you will be albe to apply during the Sunrises Period in all new extensions, without having to prove each time the existence of your rights.

What can we do for you?

1.    Analysing your trademark portfolio in order to determine the best strategy for inserting your trademark rights in the TMCH database.

2.    Determining the domain name alerts and watching services to be put in place, as alternative systems exist to detect conflicting domain names

3.    Conducting searches to determine whether risks exist of conflicting, concurrent domain name applications based on other trademark rights; this might help you to decide if it makes sense or not to insert your rights into the TMCH database

If you would like to receive more information on this matter, or a tailored advice to the specific needs and situation of your company, feel free to contact our Trademark Department.