News & Publications

November 2021 was marked by an unusual event: the venture firm Slow Ventures and private investors, the Lieberman brothers and Mr. Krishnan, invested in a person – Marina Mohylko, a YouTube blogger from Russia .

Marina is an example of a successful blogger, she has three channels: the lifestyle project “Girl from Silicon Valley” with 505 thousand subscribers, the video blog Marina Mogilko with 1.3 million subscribers and the language channel linguamarina with 4.5 million subscribers, in total her channels are subscribed 6.3 million users. Mohylko also launched a training course “How to create and promote your channel on YouTube” worth $475 (according to the blogger, more than 5,000 people bought the course).

As Business Insider noted, the Slow Ventures fund has allocated $20 million to support bloggers since the beginning of 2021, so the investment in Mogilko is not the company’s last investment in digital content producers. The fund also invests in IT projects and the crypto industry.

Under the terms of the agreement, Marina will pay investors 5% of all her profits for 30 years. However, it seems that the blogger is satisfied with such conditions, since she will be able to reduce the number of advertising partners and focus on the things that she really likes to do. “Google AdSense is a good source of income, but I also have to do a lot of affiliate deals to maintain a stable income. It distracts a lot from creativity,” Mohylko explained.

This event means two important things:

1) Venture business considers not only companies but also individuals to be potentially profitable and scalable, which means that talented Internet authors have an opportunity for financing;

2) The content generated by bloggers is not inferior in its investment attractiveness to IT startups and innovative projects. And here the proper protection of the intellectual property of the author comes to the fore.

Bloggers generate a huge amount of content every day, but are often unaware that the fruits of their creativity create legal relationships. The content created by the blogger is protected by copyright. Texts are like literary works; videos are like audiovisual works. If the blog includes mixed content, then in fact there is a collection of different works, the protection of which is granted depending on their type. Legal protection is also provided to the manner of the blogger’s speech – facial expressions, gestures, recitation – within the framework of the protection of related rights of performers.

The name of the channel/blog can be registered as a trademark, which will facilitate the commercialization of the project. Given the peculiarities of blogging, we recommend registering a trademark in cases where the commercialization of the blog is carried out through the sale of author’s products (for example, author’s courses) or the provision of any services. Individualization of author’s content on the digital market by registering a trademark will reliably ensure its legal protection, as well as promote the blogger.

We also recommend putting the sign ©, year, blog name or surname (pseudonym) under the published texts to inform about your exclusive rights and content. The presence of such a copyright sign will inform a potential infringer that the content on the channel/blog is an object of intellectual property and its owner is interested in protecting his copyright.

Sources:
https://vc.ru/media/315222-venchurnye-investory-vlozhili-1-7-mln-v-youtube-blogera-iz-rossii-marinu-mogilko-v-obmen-na-dolyu-ot-ee- dohodov
https://platforma-online.ru/media/detail/venchurnye-investory-vlozhili-1-7-mln-v-blogera-iz-rossii-v-obmen-na-dolyu-ot-ego-dokhodov-/
https://secretmag.ru/news/investory-vlozhili-120-mln-rublei-v-blogershu-iz-rossii-06-11-2021.htm
https://vc.ru/finance/105945-venchurnye-investicii-chto-eto-takoe-kak-oni-rabotayut-i-kakie-est-plyusy-i-minusy
https://legalacademy.ru/sphere/post/zakony-blogosfery-kak-i-kem-reguliruyutsya-avtorskie-prava-v-seti
https://thebell.io/strategii-venchura-pochemu-bolshie-fondy-ne-gonyatsya-za-pribylyu-v-kazhdoj-sdelke

Without a doubt, the biggest intellectual property news of the summer is that South Africa has been granted the world’s first patent for an invention by an artificial intelligence.
At first glance, the patent for a “food container based on fractal geometry”, which was issued by the South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission on July 28, 2021, seems ordinary. But when studying it in detail, we unwittingly witness an important milestone in the development of the concept of intellectual property rights.
All because, for the first time, an artificial intelligence (AI) system was not recognized as the inventor at the official level. In the column “inventor” in the application, the name of this system is indicated – DABUS, and it also contains the clarification that “the invention was autonomously generated by artificial intelligence” (DABUS, The invention was autonomously generated by an artificial intelligence).

DABUS (Device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience), which translates as “device for autonomous support of unified sentience”, was created by Steven Thaler, one of the first experts in the field of artificial intelligence and programming. DABUS simulates human “brainstorming”, creating new inventions, therefore it is capable of independent and complex functioning and “creative work”.
The patent application, in which Steven Thaler listed himself as the applicant and DABUS as the inventor, was filed with patent offices around the world, including the United States, Europe, Australia and South Africa. But only South Africa granted the applicant a patent (Australia followed suit a few days after receiving “approval” in court).
The news from South Africa caused a negative reaction from experts in the field of intellectual property. Critics believe this was the wrong decision from a legal point of view, as AI does not have the necessary legal status to be considered an inventor. Many argue that the granting of the patent was simply a mistake on the part of the Commission.
Many also blame South Africa’s patent procedures, insisting that if South Africa had a substantive application search and examination system in place, the DABUS application would have been rejected.
It is important to note that patent applications in South Africa are not subject to a formalized patent examination procedure similar to that used in the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Europe and many other jurisdictions where the same application has already been rejected and is currently in litigation. appeal

The US and UK Patent and Trademark Offices, as well as the European Patent Office, rejected this application at the formal examination stage, citing three factors. First, their patent laws stipulate that only humans, not AI, are inventors, as evidenced by the use of pronouns such as “he” and “she” in their text. Second, for the purposes of patenting ideas, an element of “mental conception” is required – something that only the human mind is capable of. Finally, being recognized as an inventor gives rights that AI cannot own or dispose of.
Indeed, the absence of a formalized application procedure in the South African patent system appears to have been a motivating factor for Thaler to seek patent protection in that country. Thus, it is not surprising that this patent was issued, but the final legal meaning of this decision remains to be determined.
As the patent is now officially published by the South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission, it is open to objections for novelty and inventive step.

Sources:
https://iponline.cipc.co.za/
https://theconversation.com/in-a-world-first-south-africa-grants-patent-to-artificial-intelligence-system-165623

Natalya Vadimivna Lemeshchuk, who is the managing partner of the patent law firm “LEX INTELZ”, on July 21, 2021, held a lecture on the topic: “Protection against unfair competition in Ukraine.”

 

The lecture was held as part of the project “Cross-cultural communications in the professional sphere” of the Faculty of Economics and Law of Odesa National University. This international internship program has already been held three times; this year it was organized jointly with the “Аdilet” Higher School of Law of the Caspian University (Almaty) for teachers from Kazakhstan.

 

During the lecture, the issues of legal regulation of violations of the rules of fair business conduct were covered, including international treaties that are in force both in Ukraine and in the Republic of Kazakhstan (for example, the Paris Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property, the TRIPS Agreement), procedures for applying to the authorities of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine with a statement on violations of legislation on protection against unfair competition, problematic issues arising in the process of law enforcement.

 

Natalya Lemeshchuk paid special attention to unfair competition in the field of intellectual property: improper use of business reputation, namely, the use of trademarks, brand names, advertising materials, design of product packaging without the consent of their owner (company or entrepreneur), which has priority; copying the appearance of goods of other manufacturers, which leads to mixing their activities with the activities of violators. Due to such illegal use of markings, copying of the appearance of products, violators receive an unjustified benefit, reaping the fruits of the efforts of those companies that have invested a lot of time, labor and money in their popularity, good name and good quality.

 

During the lecture, practical cases of unfair competition were also analyzed, in which the Patent Law Firm “LEX INTELZ” protected the rights of its clients from such violations and appealed in their interests both to the Antimonopoly Committee and to the commercial courts of Ukraine.

The patent law firm “LEX INTELZ” entered the international ranking of law firms The Legal 500 in the nomination “Leading Firm – 2021”.

 

The Legal 500 is widely known as an independent international company founded in 1987, whose goal is to provide the international community with up-to-date and reliable information about law firms and their leading specialists.

 

To show the state-of-the-art of the global legal market, this company analyzes the strengths and advantages of law firms around the world through a specially developed research program and publishes an updated ranking annually.

 

This rating is based on a large number of different criteria, including positive results and achievements in work, interest, complexity and duration of projects, in case of compliance with which law firms, like our patent law firm “LEX INTELZ”, are eligible to be included in The Legal 500.

You can get acquainted with information about PPF “LEX INTELS” in The Legal 500 here link

Source: www.legal500.com/

The Shenzhen court ruled that a work created by artificial intelligence is subject to copyright protection. This decision was made as a result of a dispute between Tencent Corporation and an online platform owned by Shanghai Yingxun Technology.

 

The platform copied content generated by Dreamwriter without permission. Dreamwriter is an automatic news writing program developed by Tencent Corporation in 2015.

 

In August 2018, Dreamwriter wrote an article that was published on the Tencent Securities website with a note that this text was automatically generated by Dreamwriter. The article was later copied by Shanghai Yingxun Technology’s platform.

 

In its decision, the court noted that the form of expression of the article meets the requirements of a written work, the structure and logic of the article are reasonable and understandable, and the article has a certain degree of originality.

 

The Shenzhen District People’s Court ruled that Shanghai Yingxun Technology violated Tencent Corporation’s copyright by its actions and should bear civil liability. Considering that the defendant has already removed the disputed work from its website, Shanghai Yingxun Technology must pay compensation to Tencent Corporation for economic damages and rights protection.

 

Source: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/

The legendary band Led Zeppelin has won a dispute in which it was accused of infringing the copyright of the song “Stairway to Heaven”. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a jury ruling that the song “Stairway to Heaven” does not infringe the copyright of Spirit’s 1968 song “Taurus.”

 

The first lawsuit was filed in 2014. It claimed that the guitar intro to ‘Stairway to Heaven’ infringed copyright on the musical component of ‘Taurus’.

During the trial, the plaintiff’s representative asked to reproduce the sound recordings of the songs “Stairway to Heaven” and “Taurus”, as he argued that the copyright protection of the song “Taurus” should include not only the sheet music, but also the song as it was recorded However, the judge refused to grant this request.

 

The fact is that the copyright on “Taurus” is protected under the Copyright Act of 1909, which applies to sheet music but not to sound recordings. Sound recordings were not protected until 1972. The song “Taurus” was copyrighted in 1967, and the copy used for the registration was a single page of sheet music.

The Copyright Act of 1976 fundamentally changed the requirements for copyright protection, allowing the public distribution of sound recordings to be treated as a musical work. This allowed artists to submit the sound recording directly as a deposit copy. However, this became possible only after the entry into force of the Act in 1978.

 

In his appeal, the plaintiff’s representative argued that the judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on the use of the inverse ratio rule. The inverse ratio rule is used when one party can prove that the infringing party had a high degree of access to the plaintiff’s work. If a high degree of access is determined, a lower standard of proof is used to determine the similarity of the songs. The inverse ratio rule is a controversial rule that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has used in copyright cases since 1977.

 

The lawsuit alleged that members of Led Zeppelin had access to Spirit’s songs during their tour together in the late 1960s. However, Led Zeppelin’s guitarist claims he never saw Spirit perform.

Because works are now readily available on the Internet, the court noted that the concept of “access” is becoming increasingly blurred in today’s digital world.

 

In addition to affirming the trial judge’s decision not to instruct the jury on the use of the inverse ratio rule, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also struck down the rule in its entirety because it is not part of copyright law, illogical, and creates uncertainty for both judges , as well as for the parties.

 

The decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was not only a victory for Led Zeppelin, but quite possibly a victory for the music industry as a whole.

 

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/

Switzerland’s Federal Institute of Intellectual Property applied to the court to prevent the Jagermeister logo from being used on products other than alcohol bottles and objects. The Institute justified such restrictions by the fact that the image of the logo offends the religious preferences of some consumers.

 

The deer and the cross between its horns, depicted on the Jagermeister logo, are related to the story of St. Hubert, who lived in the eighth century. He was an avid hunter, and as a result often neglected his religious duties. Once, while hunting, a deer with a cross between its horns appeared in front of him, and a voice told Saint Hubert to return to his duties.

 

However, the Federal Administrative Court in St. Gallen rejected this appeal. Despite the fact that the history of the logo is indeed based on an ancient Christian tale, today the average consumer definitely associates the image with Jagermeister products. According to the Swiss judges, the active use of this image by the Jagermeister company subsequently weakened its religious character, and therefore such an image cannot offend anyone.

 

Thus, Jagermeister can use its logo in Switzerland not only for alcoholic beverages and clothing, but also for any advertising activity and products, as well as for cosmetics, mobile devices and telecommunications services.

 

Source: https://www.swissinfo.ch/

The Court of the European Union considered the issue of the Federal Supreme Court of Germany, which asked for an explanation – whether the name “Balsamic vinegar of Modena” (Aceto Balsamico di Modena) protects only the name itself in its entirety or extends to non-geographical terms of this name (namely “vinegar” , “balsamic”, “balsamic vinegar”) in accordance with the EU Regulation on protected geographical indications and protected designations of origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs.

This question arose in connection with the conflict that arose between an Italian consortium of producers and a German producer of vinegar-based products.

 

An Italian consortium produces products labeled “Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)” (Balsamic Vinegar of Modena, Italy). This name, in turn, has been registered in the register of protected designations of origin and the register of protected geographical indications since 2009.

 

The German company produces and sells vinegar-based products that are made from the wines of the Baden region. On the labels of its products, it uses the words “balsamic” (balsamico) and “German balsamic” (deutscher balsamico).

 

The Italian consortium demanded that the German company stop using the term “balsamic” (balsamico) on the labels of its products. In response, the German company applied to a German court for a declaration that it could use the term in relation to its products.

 

During the consideration of the question, the Court of the European Union reached the following conclusions. In its decision, the EU Court ruled that the protection of the name “Balsamic Vinegar of Modena” (Aceto Balsamico di Modena) does not extend to the use of individual non-geographical terms of the presented name. The Court noted that the registration of the protected geographical indication and the protection that such registration provides cover the name “Balsamic Vinegar of Modena” (Aceto Balsamico di Modena) in general, as it has a recognized reputation on the national and international markets. Conversely, the non-geographical terms of this geographical indication, in particular “vinegar” and “balsamic”, their use in combination and translation are not subject to such protection, since “vinegar” is a generic term and “balsamic” is an adjective commonly used to describe vinegar with a bittersweet taste.

 

Source: http://curia.europa.eu/

A Danish court has ruled and banned the owners of the watch brand Kanske from cutting a painting by the Danish artist Tal R and using the canvas of his work as a dial for a line of luxury wristwatches.

In August of this year, the owners of the Kanske watch brand, Dann Torleifsson and Arne Leivsgaard, bought Tal R’s Paris Chic painting from the Victoria Muro gallery for £70,000.
In October, the watchmakers announced that they intended to cut up the painting and use the canvas to design the watches, which they planned to produce in quantities of 200 to 300 pieces. Manufacturers planned to sell such a watch at a price of 10,000 Danish kroner (about 1,500 US dollars).

 

The artist condemned the project and said that the watch manufacturers’ plans were “a disrespectful attempt to make money and attract attention by making a product out of my art.” In addition, the artist went to court with the intention of stopping the project, although he acknowledged that when the owners purchased the painting, they were given the right to dispose of it as they saw fit. However, he does not agree to his work being modified and re-presented in the public domain, especially not for commercial reasons.

 

In November, the artist’s lawyer applied to the court for protection against copyright infringement. In turn, the lawyer who represented the interests of the owners of the watch brand argued that this project would destroy the painting, not change it, which is allowed by Danish law.

 

In its decision, the court sided with the artist, agreeing with his arguments that the design is a modification of the work, not its destruction, which is a violation of copyright law. The court ruled in favor of Tal R, prohibited the designers from implementing their project and ordered them to pay court costs. The court also added that the watch manufacturers had abused Tal R’s artistic authority for commercial purposes, which threatened to damage his reputation.

 

Source: https://hyperallergic.com/