IP Law Watch – Page 48 – Legal issues, law and regulations concerning the world of IP

The Protection of ‘Weak’ Trademarks Having Acquired Secondary Meaning

Apr 21 2015

On February 2, 2015, (judgment no. 1861) the Italian Supreme Court ruled on a case involving two Italian companies active in the sector of furniture: Natuzzi S.p.A., owner of the Italian and European trademark ‘Divani & Divani’ (Trademark 1), and Divini & Divani S.r.l. (Divini & Divani), which started to use the trademark ‘Divini & Divani’ (Trademark 2).

Natuzzi claimed that the use of Trademark 2 was illegitimate, constituted an act of unfair competition as well as trademark infringement claiming the use generated confusion amongst customers. In particular, Natuzzi stated that, even if Trademark 1 was composed by two common words (literally in English ‘Sofas & Sofas’), it acquired specific distinctiveness. Consequently, Natuzzi sought to prevent Divini & Divani from using Trademark 2 as a company name and a trademark for its products. Divini & Divani counterclaimed that Natuzzi’s requests were groundless because there could not be any confusion between the trademarks and, in any case, Trademark 1 was weak and consequently, not worthy of protection.

The Chinese Translation of a Registered Word Trademark can be Used as a New Figurative Trademark in Italy

Apr 17 2015

On January 9, 2015, a decision of the Italian Patent and Trademark Office (Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi, hereafter ‘UIBM’) rejected an opposition made by Jaguar Land Rover Limited (Land Rover), in order to prevent the registration, in Italy, by China Depend Limited (China Depend) of a figurative trademark. The trademark was formed by two Chinese ideograms corresponding to the sign used in China by Land Rover to identify its activity, which once translated means ‘land’ and ‘tiger’, but allegedly commonly translated into ‘Land Rover’ ( Ideogram Trademark).

Land Rover, owner of the two Italian word trademarks ‘Land Rover’ and ‘Range Rover’ (Land Rover Trademarks), filed an opposition pursuant to Article 12, paragraph 1, letter d) of the Italian Intellectual Property Code setting forth the likelihood of confusion between similar trademarks. In particular, the provision provides that signs cannot be registered as trademarks if, at the date of the registration filing, they are similar or identical to other trademarks previously registered by third parties in the same country or are enjoying protection in the same country.

Australian ISPs Ordered to Hand Over Customer Details in P2P Copyright Action

Apr 09 2015

Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited [2015] FCA 317

In November 2014, IP Law Watch reported on attempts by the rights holder of the film Dallas Buyers Club to compel Australian ISPs to disclose the identities of BitTorrent users who allegedly shared copies of the film.

On 7 April 2015, Justice Perram of the Federal Court of Australia ruled in favour of Dallas Buyers Club LLC and Voltage Pictures LLC, ordering six ISPs to disclose the details of 4,726 customers.

The judgment has been widely reported in the Australian media as a landmark decision and a game changer in the battle regarding online piracy. In fact, the kind of order granted by Justice Perram is far from revolutionary. For many years, civil procedure rules at both state and federal levels have enabled a party to seek orders requiring a third party to produce documents or give evidence as to the identity of a prospective respondent. There are decisions going back as far as the 1970s in which this kind of preliminary discovery order has been granted (see for example Exley v Wyong Shire Council (10 December 1976, Master Allen, unreported) and Stewart v Miller [1979] 2 NSWLR 128).

Yahoo! Vs. Reti Televisive Italiane S.p.a: A Turning Point in ISP’s Liability in Italy?

Apr 07 2015

On January 7, 2015 the Court of Appeal of Milan (Court of Appeal) rendered a relevant judgment on a dispute involving Yahoo! Italia S.r.l and Yahoo! Inc. vs. Reti Televisive Italiane S.p.A. (RTI), one of Italy’s major broadcasters. RTI sued Yahoo! Italia S.r.l. and Yahoo! Inc. (Yahoo!) because of the reproduction of RTI’s copyrighted videos on the Yahoo! Video-sharing platform (Yahoo! Video Italia). RTI requested the removal of such videos and the implementation by Yahoo! of a filtering and blocking system in order to detect and prevent any infringement of copyright. The Court of Appeal concluded that the hosting provider is only exclusively responsible if it takes active part in the uploading activity or is aware of the unlawful content or use of the material and does not erase them.

Roger Maier and Assos of Switzerland SA v ASOS plc and ASOS.com Limited

Apr 02 2015

In a long-anticipated decision, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Court of Appeal) on Wednesday held, by 2-1 majority, that use of the ASOS brand by the popular online clothing retailer was defensible under the ‘own name’ defence in Community trade mark law.

The decision, which reversed the findings of the judge at first instance, will be appealed to the Supreme Court (the highest court in England and Wales) by the Claimants, who own the successful ASSOS cycling clothing business and are the proprietors of a Community trade mark for the ASSOS word mark, which has been registered since 2005.

Denied Again: FDA Denies Amgen’s Citizen Petition Requesting Certification of Compliance with BPCIA Patent Dance

Apr 01 2015

As discussed previously in Next Steps in the Dance: Amgen Files Citizen Petition at FDA Requesting Mandatory Compliance with BPCIA Patent Procedures, Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA requesting that the FDA mandate compliance with the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act’s (“BPCIA’s”) information exchange provisions, often referred to as the “Patent Dance.” In particular, Amgen requested that the FDA require a biosimilar applicant to certify that it will timely comply with Section 351(l)(2)(A) of the BPCIA by providing the brand holder with a copy of the biosimilar application and information describing the process(es) used to manufacture the biosimilar product covered by the application.

To read the full alert, click here.

International Design Update

Mar 31 2015

New Members to the Hague System

The Hague Agreement concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs (Hague System) is administered by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and has been around for almost 100 years. It is a mechanism, similar to the Madrid Protocol System for trade marks, of registering an industrial design in several countries by means of a single application, filed in one language and with one set of fees. The Hague System produces the same effect of a grant of protection in each of the designated contracting countries as if the design had been registered directly with each national office, unless protection is refused by the national office.

An Ounce of Prevention: Act Now with “.sucks” Registration Opening

Mar 30 2015

As many brand owners may know, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) recently approved the .sucks gTLD. The Sunrise period for trademark owners to register .sucks domain names containing their trademarks begins on March 30, 2015; the general availability period begins on June 1, 2015. We recommend that brand owners consider registering their main brand or trademark as a .sucks domain to block third parties from doing the same.

To read the full alert, click here.

United States Supreme Court Holds That Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Determination of Likelihood of Confusion May Bind Subsequent Court Infringement Case

Mar 26 2015

On March 24, 2015, in a case covered here in a previous posting (On Tap at the U.S. Supreme Court: An Important Trademark Case, September 3, 2014), the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) held that a determination of likelihood of confusion by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), in an administrative tribunal which determines registerability, may preclude further litigation of the issue in a subsequent infringement case. In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had determined that a TTAB finding would not bind an infringement court because, among other reasons, the factors considered by the TTAB were not identical to those considered by the trial court. The Supreme Court, though, by a 7-2 vote, held that when the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met and where the issues in the two cases are identical, the ruling by the agency tribunal controls. The Supreme Court also found that even though the specific factors considered in a likelihood of confusion analysis may vary somewhat, they are not ‘fundamentally different’ and that the ‘likelihood of confusion’ standard is the same for registration and infringement purposes.

Do not use Audrey Hepburn’s Iconic Elements

Mar 24 2015

That’s what the Court of Milan has stated on January 21, 2015 (judgment no.766/2015)!

This dispute originated with the use by an Italian company, Caleffi S.p.A. (Caleffi), of an image recalling the famous scene from ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ in which the actress, well-dressed in black, wearing sunglasses and pearls, was staring into the window of Tiffany’s Fifth Avenue boutique. Caleffi was promoting the prize contest ‘The dream diamond’. Audrey Hepburn’s heirs sued Caleffi and brought before the Court of Milan (Court) an action for damages based on the claimed violation of article 10 of the Italian Civil Code, on the use of the images of a person, and article 96 of Italian Copyright Law, on the protection of portraits.\