In a decision dated 11 December 2023, the Copyright Review Board of the United States Copyright Office affirmed the Office’s refusal to register an AI-generated artwork submitted by Ankit Sahni.
Read MoreIn McD Asia Pacific LLC v. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412, fast-food giant McDonald’s and Australian dinner-time rival Hungry Jack’s faced off in the Federal Court of Australia over their burger names BIG MAC vs BIG JACK and MEGA MAC vs MEGA JACK.
Read MoreHamburg, Germany – Not only known for its famous seafood and the third largest European seaport for goods and cargo handling1, but also a considerable and noteworthy jurisdiction when it comes to the protection and enforcement of trade mark rights in preliminary proceedings.
The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg found in a recent trade mark dispute in preliminary injunction proceedings (Decision of 29 September 2022 – 5 U 91/21) between the “Deutsche Telekom” (“Claimant”) and the Spanish telecommunication company “Telefónica” and its German subsidiary (together “Defendants”), that the application and use of a “T” consisting of five dots in combination with various Telefónica company symbols (e.g. shown below left and middle) (“Contested Signs”) constitute an infringement of the well-known “T-brand” (shown below right) (EUTM 215194 ; DE 39529531) of Deutsche Telekom (“T-Trade Mark”).
The Court found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the opposing signs, confirmed that the “T”-brand has a reputation within the meaning of Art. 9 (2) lit. c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/1001), and therefore concluded that the defendant’s trade mark infringes the claimant’s trade mark rights resulting in the grant of a preliminary injunction (“PI”).
Read MoreRussia’s bold response to Western economic sanctions following its invasion of Ukraine now includes what amounts to legalizing patent theft against “unfriendly countries.” On March 5, 2022, the Kremlin issued Decree 299, which states that Russian companies and individuals can use inventions, utility models and industrial designs without owner permission or compensation, if the patent hails from a list of “unfriendly countries.”1 Specifically, the decree sets compensation for patent infringement at “0%” if the patent holder is a citizen of, is registered in, or has a primary place of business or profit in any of the 48 countries Russia previously designated as “unfriendly.”2 Unsurprisingly, the list includes the United States, Great Britain, European Union members, Australia, and other critics of Russia’s actions against Ukraine.
Read More
The Federal Circuit’s decision last week in Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC provided clarity regarding the nexus requirement of secondary considerations of non-obviousness, particularly with respect to whether a patentee is entitled to a presumption of nexus. [1] Despite the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding that the cited art disclosed all the limitations of the challenged patent—which claimed a bicycle chainring for engagement with a drivetrain—and that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the cited prior art, the PTAB found that, based on an analysis of secondary considerations, the claims of the challenged patent were not obvious. [2] The Federal Circuit focused in on the comparison of the patentee’s product and the scope of the challenged claims. [3] In doing so, the panel found that “[a] patent claim is not co-extensive with a product that includes a ‘critical’ un-claimed feature . . . that materially impacts the product’s functionality.” [4]
Read MoreCopyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.