IP Law Watch – Page 49 – Legal issues, law and regulations concerning the world of IP

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.\

Dancing Not Required: District Court Denies Amgen’s Bid for Preliminary Injunction, Finds BPCIA “Patent Dance” Optional

Mar 23 2015

The biologics industry has been closely monitoring Amgen Inc.’s (“Amgen’s”) lawsuit against Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) for refusing to engage in the BPCIA’s “patent dance” with respect to Sandoz’s application for Zarxio®, a biosimilar of Amgen’s Neupogen® (filgrastim), to see what, if any, guidance the district court would provide on the interpretation of the BPCIA. See Left without a Partner: Amgen Sues Sandoz for Refusing to Dance in Accordance with BPCIA Patent Procedures. This litigation has sparked additional interest in view of FDA’s recent approval of Zarxio®, which has led to industry-wide speculation regarding the litigation’s potential impact on Sandoz’s ability to market its now approved biosimilar. See FDA Approves First Biosimilar: Sandoz’s Zarxio®. The District Court of the Northern District of California has now provided an answer, siding with Sandoz’s interpretation that the BPCIA’s patent dance provisions are optional and the 180 day notice provision does not require licensure, and denying Amgen’s request for a preliminary injunction.

To read the full alert, click here.

Decade Old Official Fees set to Change for Trade Marks and Designs in Hong Kong

Mar 20 2015

On 18 March 2015, the Hong Kong Intellectual Property Department (IPD) informed E-filers that, subject to the completion of legislative procedures, certain official fees for trade marks and designs will be revised from 30 March 2015. Official renewal fees for trade marks and designs will be slashed. The official filing fees for trade mark applications and searches will be hiked, to help the IPD recover its running costs. Read More

Big News for Manufacturers of Replica Furniture and Decorative Items

Mar 19 2015

Repeal of Section 52 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

The arco lamp (Castiglioni brothers) and the butterfly chair (Lucian Ercolani, founder of Ercol) are two examples of iconic products, which, until a recently announced change in the law, would not have been able to receive the full duration of copyright protection in the United Kingdom.

In the United Kingdom, as in many other countries, copyright protects an article for the creator’s life plus 70 years. However, there are exceptions, including Section 52 of the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) 1988 which limits protection to 25 years for industrially manufactured copies. Read More

Fashion Law

Mar 16 2015

“The great thing about fashion is that it always looks forward.” Oscar de la Renta

We are excited to bring you the second edition of Fashion Law, highlighting important issues in the crossroads between fashion and the law.

From choosing brand names and protecting distinctive elements of your product and prints, to exclusivity agreements with retailers and protecting your brand online, Fashion Law provides you with valuable information at all stages of your journey, from kick-starting your business through to the runway and beyond.

Please click here to read the Autumn/Winter 2015 edition of Fashion Law.

Fashion Law Image

After Nine Year Battle, Appeals Court Upholds US$540,000 Award to Sculptor for Use of Memorial Images on U.S. Postage Stamp

Mar 05 2015

A long litigation battle by sculptor Frank Gaylord against the U.S. government has resulted in the confirmation of an award of more than US$540,000. In 1990, Mr. Gaylord won a competition to work on a federal memorial to veterans of the Korean War (Memorial), which had been authorized by the U.S. Congress. Ultimately, the Memorial comprised 19 stainless steel statues, designed to represent a platoon of soldiers in formation on the ground. The Memorial was completed, installed, and opened to the public in Washington, DC, in 1995. Mr. Gaylord filed a number of copyright registrations, covering the various statues. Read More

High Court to Consider Whether Isolated Genetic Material is Patentable in Australia

Feb 19 2015

On 13 February 2015, the High Court of Australia (High Court) heard and granted Yvonne D’Arcy’s application for special leave to appeal the Full Federal Court of Australia’s (Full Federal Court) decision in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115.

The unanimous decision of the five-judge bench of the Full Federal Court was that Myriad Genetics Inc’s patent claims directed to particular isolated BRCA1 genes were patentable subject matter in Australia.

Single Patent Filing and Examination in Australia and New Zealand Almost a Reality

Feb 17 2015

As we reported late last year, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014 was read by the Australian House of Representatives. On 9 February 2015, the bill passed the Australia Senate and will soon become law in Australia as the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 2015.

One significant aspect of the new law is the introduction of a Single Application Process (SAP) and a Single Examination Process (SEP) for Australia and New Zealand patent applications. Read More

Australia’s Very Exclusive Patent Licensee Club

Feb 11 2015

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v Apotex Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 2

The Full Federal Court of Australia (Court) has held that an ‘exclusive licensee’ within the definition of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act), must be granted the exclusive right to undertake ALL of the activities falling within the meaning of “exploit”. Accordingly, a grant of a licence to advertise, market, promote, sell and distribute, but not manufacture, does not create an “exclusive licensee”, as defined in the Patents Act. There can only be one exclusive licensee and the patentee cannot reserve any of the exclusive rights to exploit to itself. Read More