News & Publications

The Court of Justice of the European Union issued a decision in the case C-683/17. With this decision, the court clarified the conditions that must be met in order for a work to be subject to copyright protection.
A dispute between two fashion designers became the basis for the case. One of the designers appealed to the court with a demand to stop actions that violate his copyright. In addition, he argued that clothing is an original intellectual creation because of its aesthetic effect. In this regard, his clothes should be classified as a “work” and subject to copyright protection.

 

The parties’ dispute was referred to the Supreme Court of Portugal. A similar question regarding the necessary degree of originality of a work for its protection by the norms of copyright has not yet been raised either by the scientific community or in judicial practice. In this regard, the Supreme Court of Portugal turned to the Court of Justice of the European Union for clarification. In particular, the following question was raised before the EU Court: can a design be considered a work of art according to the norms of copyright, only on the basis that this design produces an aesthetic effect?
First of all, the Court of the European Union emphasized that such a term as “work of art” is an autonomous concept of the law of the European Union. This concept was formed directly by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU. The EU Court also emphasized that this concept should be interpreted and applied equally. Moreover, for the concept of “work of art” to exist, two aggregate conditions must be met.

 

As the first condition, judicial practice defines the following: the work must be an original object. This implies that the work should be a reflection of the author’s personality through the embodiment of his free and creative decisions. However, an object cannot be original enough to be considered a work if the creation of that object is driven by technical considerations or rules that leave no room for creative freedom.
The second condition was that accuracy, clarity and objectivity are necessary for the identification of the object. However, these qualities cannot be achieved due to the fact that identification itself is carried out on the basis of sensations. Feelings, in turn, are essentially subjective for the person who perceives the object.

 

Based on these considerations, the EU Court states that the aesthetic effect created by the design is perceived by each individual person subjectively, based on his understanding of beauty. So, the subjective effect alone does not allow to identify the object accurately and objectively enough. In addition, the Court emphasizes that the aesthetic effect is undoubtedly an important component of creative activity. However, it does not provide an opportunity to determine whether the design is an intellectual creation, which is a demonstration of the personality and freedom of the author, which in turn does not allow to determine the compliance of the object with the requirement of originality.

 

Based on this, the Court of the European Union ruled that design, including clothing design, is not subject to copyright protection on the sole basis that it produces a unique, aesthetically significant visual effect.
It should be noted that the conclusions reached by the EU Court harmonized the concept of “work of art” in the member states of the European Union.

 

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

The Intellectual Property Office of Great Britain refused to grant legal protection to 6 trademarks applied for registration by Jaguar Land Rover. The brands that the company wanted to register consisted of 3D models in the form of the shapes of cars of series 1, 2, etc. The Land Rover company has applied for registration of trademarks for a rather wide list of goods 9, 12, 14, 28 and services of 37 classes of the MKTP. In particular, the company wanted to obtain legal protection for toys, jewelry and electrical goods.

 

However, the UK Intellectual Property Office has decided to refuse to register these trademarks. This decision was made by the Office as a result of two objections against registration submitted by a competing company. The objections were based on the arguments that the trademarks submitted for registration are not distinctive and cannot be represented graphically.

 

It is worth noting that the expert objected to these applications during the examination based on the same grounds. However, Land Rover was able to present evidence that the marks do have distinctive characteristics. This in turn convinced the expert, and as a result the applications were published.

The British Intellectual Property Office justified the refusal to register trademarks as follows: the marks do differ in shape from sports cars and hatchbacks, but these marks still do not have significant differences from the shapes used in the passenger car sector, including the 4×4 sector.

 

Source: www.worldipreview.com

July 19, 2019, in connection with the entry into force of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated June 12, 2019 No. 496 “On Amendments to Resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1756 of December 27, 2001 and No. 1716 of December 23, 2004 » (further – Resolution) the amounts of official fees for actions related to the protection of rights to intellectual property objects were significantly increased.

 

However, on the basis of clause 6 of the Procedure for paying fees for actions related to the protection of rights to intellectual property objects, approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated December 23, 2004 No. 1716, applicants who want to use the old fees, but do not have time prepare the necessary documents, have the right to pay the amount of the fee at the old rate to the current account of the examination institution until July 19, 2019, and submit the corresponding application for the object of intellectual property, petition, objection, etc., within one month from the date of entry into force of the new fee rate , that is, until August 19, 2019.

 

This Resolution introduces a number of interesting innovations. In particular, the amount of official fees for submitting applications for the registration of intellectual property objects in the form of an electronic document is reduced by 20% compared to the standard fees provided for by the new Resolution. This innovation is related to the promotion of the encouragement of applicants to submit applications for the registration of intellectual property objects in electronic form and the transition of the examination institution completely to electronic record-keeping in the future.

 

The general goal of the new Resolution is to strengthen the scientific, technical and economic development of Ukraine and ensure the functioning of the state system of legal protection of intellectual property, including by increasing the quality of services and at the same time reducing the terms of consideration of documents by authorized bodies, as well as reducing cases of patent trolling and squatter activities, that have recently been massively spreading in Ukraine.

 

Source: www.ukrpatent.org

The European Court of General Jurisdiction confirmed the EUIPO’s decision to cancel the registration of the adidas trademark on the territory of the European Union. The court noted that the mark is not a pattern mark, which consists of repeated elements, but is a simple figurative mark.

 

Earlier, in 2014, EUIPO registered a trademark that adidas described in its application as follows: “three parallel, equidistant lines of equal width applied to the product in any direction”. However, following an invalidation application filed by the Belgian company Branding Europe BVBA, the EUIPO canceled this registration. EUIPO based its decision on the fact that the mark lacks distinctiveness, both inherent from the beginning and acquired as a result of use.

 

Also, the press release reports that the Court noted the absence of an error on the part of EUIPO regarding the evaluation of the research of adidas materials. The EUIPO considered that adidas had not proved the use of the mark throughout the European Union and the acquisition of distinctiveness as a result of the use of the trademark.

 

EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) is an agency that registers European Union trademarks, which are granted legal protection on the territory of all EU member states as a result of registration.

 

 

Source: www.curia.europa.eu

On May 18, EUIPO and EURid launched a new service that makes a significant contribution to the fight by EU trademark applicants against fraudulent domain name registrations.

 

From the moment the application is published, the trademark becomes vulnerable to registration of domain names by third parties, which in turn can create problems for applicants. The new service allows right holders and applicants to be notified when a domain name has been registered in the .eu or .eu zone that is identical to their EU trade mark application.

 

The main advantage of such messages is saving time. First of all, in the event of such registration, it will be possible to immediately take the necessary measures to protect your trademark. In addition, it is much faster than doing the search yourself. This service undoubtedly serves as a preventive tool in the fight against the practice of unscrupulous domain name registration and will allow building a more reliable and transparent Internet space.

 

EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) is an agency that registers European Union trademarks, which are granted legal protection on the territory of all EU member states as a result of registration.
EURid is the manager of the domain name registry in the .eu or .eu zone, appointed by the European Commission in 2003.

 

Source: www.euipo.europa.eu

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has launched a new series of studies in the field of technology. The subject of the first report was artificial intelligence (AI). The study is based on the materials of international applications submitted, for the issuance of patents and on the analysis of information related to innovative activity in the field of AI. The study presents a historical retrospective of the development of AI technologies, the most popular trends in the development of AI technologies, leading players in the field of patenting these technologies, and prospects for the development of this direction in the future.

 

The authors of the study note the incredibly rapid development of this industry over the past five years, which is not limited to any one industry, but on the contrary affects all possible industries. The top areas in the report are transport, telecommunications, medical and biological sciences. The authors note IBM and Microsoft as the leading players in the field of AI patenting, which have the largest patent portfolios.

 

Also, in their research, the experts do not ignore the challenges posed to modern society by the rapid development of AI technologies. First of all, one of the scenarios for the development of AI can be an increase in unemployment and a decrease in the level of wages, because many occupations, the basis of which are repetitive tasks, can now be replaced by jobs. The next challenge in the report is data privacy. Experts say that people must be willing to give up some of their privacy if they want to receive the services they need. In this case, one of the ways to avoid misuse of private information is seen to be for companies to be more transparent and honest in relation to the use of AI technologies.

 

In addition, the report presents an overview of the policies of leading countries regarding artificial intelligence. It can be concluded that the states seek to create a platform for the development of technologies in this field and lay the foundation for its further regulation.

 

Such a massive volume of data, which was analyzed by WIPO’s leading specialists, allows you to see the current situation in the field of AI technologies and look into the future of this innovative activity.

 

 

Source: www.wipo.int

With the adoption of Directive 2019/790, one of the most extensive revisions of copyright legislation has ended. The legislative process, which began in 2016, was hotly debated, and many sources call this draft Directive the most lobbied of all. The purpose of the document is to ensure compliance with the rights and obligations provided for by copyright in the Internet space. Also, in the press release of the European Parliament, it is repeatedly noted that one of the priorities of the document is the preservation of guarantees of freedom of speech.

 

Innovations related to responsibility for content received the greatest resonance. If previously materials from the site had to be removed at the request of the right holder, now the responsibility for posted content rests with Internet sites. This means that before publishing material, the owner of the site must first obtain permission to do so. The same applies to content that was created by site users. In this aspect, the first difficulties appear, since there is an obvious advantage of large companies that already use an algorithm for searching for materials that violate copyright. And although the Directive provides certain relaxations to startups, nevertheless, the use of such algorithms by small and medium-sized companies can become burdensome.

 

Another novelty was the right of press publishers and journalists to demand fair remuneration from information service providers for the digital use of their publications. Previously, publishers could not control the appearance of their publications on information portals, but now the Directive gives journalists and publishers the right to grant licenses for the use of their materials. In this case, such large information service providers as GoogleNews and other information portals, which will be limited in republishing the material without the consent of the right holder, may become vulnerable. Exceptions in this case are hyperlinks, use of individual words and very short extracts. The directive does not specify the term “very short extracts”, so its interpretation is left to the discretion of the legislative bodies of each of the member states of the European Union.

 

Many sources express concern about how this Directive will be used in practice, because the provisions of the document are formulated in such a way that the right to explain many terms is granted by the national legislation of the countries of the European Union. The final implementation of the law should be completed by 2021. This is the period given to the authorities of the member states to bring their legislation into compliance with the adopted Directive.

 

Source: www.europarl.europa.eu

The International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (SIZAK) enlisted the help of the Spanish Point Technologies company to update the ISWC (International Standard Code of Musical Works) global information system.

 

The ISWC system is a key tool for the successful functioning of the digital music market. It allows you to effectively provide millions of authors with fair payment for their work. The source notes a 164% increase in digital service royalty collection over the past five years, reaching 1 billion Euros in 2017. Today, the Spotify and Apple Music platforms represent more than 40 million musical compositions, and ISWC codes are the basis for effective identification, collection and distribution of digital royalties.

 

During its existence, the ISWC system was updated several times. The latest updates were carried out in 2018 together with the long-standing partner of SIZAK — FastTrack. The new collaboration with Spanish Point Technologies is unique in its kind. As SIZAK explains, improvements to the system will speed up the process of appropriating ISWC codes by authors’ societies for use by digital service providers and publishers.

 

The International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (SIZAC) is a non-profit organization that has established a platform for communication and cooperation between copyright societies.

 

 

Source: www.sisac.org