Fashion retailer, H&M has been unsuccessful in its application to the EU General Court to invalidate YSL’s Community designs for handbags. Community designs protect designs for up to 25 years in every EU Member State. In November 2006, YSL successfully registered two of its designs for handbags. H&M had applied for a declaration of invalidity for these two YSL designs arguing that the designs had no individual character.
On 25 August 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) ruled that certain functions of the TVEyes media-monitoring service infringe Fox News’ copyrights in its programming content.
TVEyes is a for-profit, media-monitoring service with over 22,000 subscribers that indexes nearly all news-related television and radio content in a searchable database. TVEyes allows users to track the usage of words or phrases of interest and to view the transcripts and video clips of the portions of the television broadcast that use the search term. Subscribers may set ‘watch lists’ for terms to receive real time alerts when certain terms are used and search past broadcasts. TVEyes also provides subscribers with analytic data such as a segment’s Nielsen viewership rating, the frequency with which a term has been mentioned over a specified time period and the geographic markets and channels where a term is used. Additionally, TVEyes users may archive, indefinitely, video clips that appear in response to search queries on TVEyes’ server. Users can also email the video clip links to others, allowing the recipients of the link to view the video clip on TVEyes’ server, as well as download copies of identified digital video clips for offline use and permanent storage.
A recent judgment on 16 June 2015 (no. 7432/2015), saw the Court of Milan ascertain the difference between a shape trademark and an artistic shape classified as industrial design protected under copyright law.
The dispute concerned the use and the reproduction of the design of the renowned ‘Nathalie’ bed (the Design), which was created in the ‘70s by Italian designer and architect Vico Magistretti. Mr. Magistretti (and later his heirs) granted an exclusive licence of the Design to the plaintiff.
The UK Supreme Court (the country’s highest court of appeal) has refused permission to appeal in the long-running Assos v Asos trade mark dispute.
As reported in our post on 2 April 2015 here, the Court of Appeal held that online retailer Asos did not infringe Swiss clothing company, Assos’s, Community trade mark as use of the ASOS brand was defensible under the ‘own name’ defence in Community law.
Christian Louboutin (Louboutin) has again been successful in a long running opposition proceeding filed by Roland SE (Roland) against its red sole trade mark in the European Union.
Louboutin has faced legal challenges around the world in registering and enforcing its signature red sole on its shoes. In 2010, Louboutin filed a Community Trade Mark application for the below trade mark in class 25 for “high-heeled shoes (except orthopaedic footwear)” (Louboutin Mark):
(Louboutin Mark)
In November 2013, fashion designer Tory Burch sued Youngran Kim, and three companies controlled by Kim, for counterfeiting and trade mark infringement relating to the sale of jewellery. The jewellery featured a registered logo trade mark design owned by Tory Burch. While this was not the basis of Tory Burch’s legal claim, it is worth noting that, as well as featuring Tory Burch’s logo device, the defendants’ jewellery also closely resembled jewellery designs that had been released by Tory Burch, as seen below.
The Federal Circuit issued a ruling on July 21, 2015 in the Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc., Case No. 2015-1499, appeal after hearing oral arguments on June 3, 2015. See BPCIA: A “Choose Your Own Adventure” Statute? (describing the parties’ oral arguments before the Federal Circuit). Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) appealed the Northern District of California’s decision holding that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act’s (“BPCIA’s”) “patent dance” provisions are optional and that the 180-day notice provision does not require licensure. See Dancing Not Required: District Court Denies Amgen’s Bid for Preliminary Injunction, Finds BPCIA “Patent Dance” Optional.
To read the full alert, click here.
In March, the IP Court of Venice (Court) provided a unique ruling on copyright law.
The Court ruled on an issue concerning the application of Italian copyright laws to protect a legal work created by a lawyer works.
A lawyer (Plaintiff) sued an entity (Entity), which was organizing an exposition for the infringement of Plaintiff’s moral rights due to the non-authorized use of a document containing IP policy guidelines (Document) to be distributed among the exhibitors, which entirely reproduced a document drafted years ago by the Plaintiff for another entity.
After an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a preliminary injunction against Sandoz Inc.’s (“Sandoz”) Zarxio® in the District Court for the Northern District of California, Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) has prevailed before the Federal Circuit in excluding the biosimilar from the market, at least temporarily. On May 5, 2015, the Federal Circuit granted Amgen’s motion for an injunction “preventing Sandoz [ ] from marketing, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the United States its FDA-approved ZARXIO® biosimilar product until this Court resolves the appeal.” Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al., Appeal No. 2015-1499, Dkt. 105 (Fed. Cir. March 27, 2015).
To read the full alert, click here.
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.
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.