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

 

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.

After seven years, the infamous intellectual property battle between Apple and Samsung has come to an end. After the many costly and highly symbolic procedures, the parties have decided to settle the matter amicably.
As was widely discussed by international press, the disputes revolved around a multitude of patents, but also designs.

But what is the difference between patents and designs?
Indeed, those two can be confusing, and can sometimes even appear to overlap.
A patent protects the technical functionality of an invention, so long as it is new, involves an inventive step and is susceptible of industrial application. A granted patent provides the exclusive right to its owner, to prevent others from exploiting the invention.
A patent does not protect the appearance of the invention, but only the technical functionality, such as, for example, the way Apple’s interface bounces when scrolled (US Patent US7844915B2 or US7469381B2).
A design right, in contrast, offers an exclusive right to its owner on the appearance itself of the product, such as the shape of the Apple iPhones (US Design USD593087S1). A design must be novel and original to be valid.
Since it is often the design that creates the recognition value of a product, the power of a valid design right should not be underestimated, as was demonstrated by the Apple v. Samsung case.

In order to protect the entirety of a technical invention meant for commercialization, it is therefore recommend to think about a possible patentability of the product, as well as its eligibility for design protection.

From 1st June 2018 on, it will be possible to request the cancellation of a Benelux trademark before the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) within a smooth and cost effective way.

The new Benelux trademark law foresees the cancellation of Benelux trademarks for absolute and relative grounds. This means that administrative proceedings are open to interested parties, and that court actions are not required anymore.

• prior trademark rights (trademark application or registration, such as well-known trademark rights) may be invoked against a Benelux trademark registration.
• the cancellation of a Benelux trademark registration may also by requested on absolute grounds or  for non-use of the trademark in the Benelux territory.

It will however not be possible to invoke non-registered trademark rights, such as domain names or company names before the BOIP.

The cancellation proceeding will be similar to the opposition proceeding and thus foresees the possibility of the parties to amicably settle the conflict (with reimbursement of taxes in several cases) and the joint requests for suspension of the proceedings.

The loosing part will have to reimburse the fix amount of 1400,- EUR to the other party.

The official fees for filing a cancellation action are of 1400,- EUR.

Please do not hesitate to contact us, should you require additional information or a specific quote on this new procedure.

FEDIL organizes a conference on the new BEPS-compliant IP tax regime in Luxembourg, which will take place on Monday, 7 May 2018 at 14h30 in the Chamber of Commerce Conference Center (room C2) 7, rue Alcide de Gasperi in Luxembourg/Kirchberg.

The objective is to provide an update on the key tax and legal aspects of the new IP regime covering:

• Legal qualification of the IPs;
• Key changes introduced by OECD BEPS Action 5 and their impact on existing IP structures;
• Separation between qualifying and non-qualifying assets and related income under the new regime;
• Practical aspects regarding the tracking and documentation of eligible expenditures for the nexus ratio;
• Key transfer pricing and substance considerations; and
• Sharing perspective of the application of the Luxembourg IP regime to the Luxembourg industry and innovative start-ups.

The conference aims to provide a comprehensive view to members with the help of Luxembourg Tax and IP experts, namely Deloitte Luxembourg and the Office Freylinger.

The conference is open to FEDIL members, who may register with FEDIL.