Posts Tagged: "EUIPO"

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) announced today that it has for the first time referred questions of legal interpretation of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) to the enlarged Board of Appeal. The EUIPO’s Executive Director, João Negrão, asked the Office’s Grand Board of Appeal to weigh in on five questions concerning the practice of “conversion,” which allows an EU Trade Mark (EUTM) application or registration to be converted into one or more national applications when necessary. The process is meant to address situations in which an EUTM faces a ground of non-registrability in one or several Member States; through conversion, “the EUTM applicant can convert the EUTM into one or more trade mark applications in the Member States not affected by the problem,” explained the Executive Director’s Referral of Questions.

The number of design applications filed through the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs continues to grow, with an 18.8% increase in annual filings reported in 2022. The Hague system, which covers 96 countries, offers numerous advantages for applicants and presents some interesting strategic options for filing in the United States as well.

Today, the International Trademark Association (INTA) published an amicus brief filed with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in a case that should have major implications for the effects of Brexit on EU trademark law. INTA’s brief asks the CJEU to reverse a lower court’s decision and rule that the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) was correct in determining that UK trademark law can no longer provide a legal interest to sustain an opposition to an EU trademark application filed before Brexit.

The European Commission (EC) is at it again, threatening to regulate standard essential patent (SEP) licensing relationships, despite a lack of evidence that such regulation is appropriate. The economically harmful nature of this regulatory framework (and its prior draft) has been highlighted by many expert commentators, including contributors to IPWatchdog (see here, here, and here) and Truth on the Market (see here and here). Fortunately, the EC’s proposed regulatory framework is still open for public comments. Mindful of that opportunity, on May 23, Mercatus Center scholars Christine McDaniel, Satya Marar, and I filed a public interest submission with the European Commission, focusing on three sets of problems posed by the framework. I summarize our submission below.

On April 27, a pair of legal measures were advanced within the European Union that promise to greatly impact the state of technological commercialization within Europe for both standardized and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. While political leaders in the EU maintain that either proposal addresses consumer safety and competition concerns, multiple commentators have pointed out issues that could slow the rate of technological commercialization to the detriment of Europeans across the continent.

The European Union is reportedly considering sweeping new regulations for the licensing and litigation of standard essential patents (SEPs), which make fair-minded observers wonder whether any sane adults are in charge at the European Commission (EC). The EU’s proposed new regulatory regime is scheduled to be released on April 26 by the Directorate for the Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW) of the European Commission (EC). And recently leaked drafts suggest that proposal will contain sweeping new regulations that will effectively put an end to the licensing and litigation of SEPs as it exists today.

In late March, news broke that the European Commission was drafting sweeping regulations on the licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs). Commentators predict the draft will be released in late April and, although this is an early draft that will likely evolve, below we offer the following initial observations. In its current form, the new regulatory framework would encourage increased transparency in SEP licensing through several new policies and procedures. In particular, the regulations would establish a “competence center” at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to act as a sort of clearinghouse for SEP issues (both technical and economic). The EUIPO does not currently have patent expertise; EP patents are the purview of the European Patent Office (EPO), which is separate from the European Union and includes non-EU members.

The European Union is considering a new regulatory regime for the licensing and litigation of standard essential patents (SEPs) that will destabilize the global telecommunications market. This proposed regulatory regime is unbalanced in favoring implementers over innovators, and thus it threatens to hamstring the explosive technological and economic growth in this vital sector of the modern innovation economy. Although the EU has finally awoken to the competitive and geopolitical threat posed by China, this regulatory proposal undermines efforts by the EU and the United States to sustain their global technological leadership.

During IPWatchdog’s Standards, Patents & Competition Masters 2022 program last week, one panel examined the standard essential patent (SEP) landscape in Europe, which has become decidedly more patent owner friendly than that of the United States in recent years. Beginning with the landmark 2015 decision by the European Court of Justice in Huawei v. ZTE, ([2015] EUECJ C-170/13), European courts have held SEP holders and implementers to account by applying the framework set forth in that ruling, which panelist Inna Dahlin of Valea AB summarized for attendees.

With its widespread use on social networks, mainly on Twitter, the hashtag has become a real communication tool. As a result, there have been a number of trademark registrations with the “#” symbol in the last few years. The question remains, however, as to whether using a third-party trademark with the “#” sign can be considered trademark use and is therefore likely to be infringing the trademark owner’s rights. The Oxford dictionary defines the hashtag as “a word or phrase with the symbol ‘#’ in front of it, used on social media websites and apps so that you can search for all messages with the same subject”.

On August 18, 2022, Albert Pujols hit a grand slam against Austin Gomber for his 690th career home run. A clip of that home run was posted on Reddit before the official Major League Baseball (MLB) app was updated. Three years ago, the post would have been taken down quickly. Today, it has thousands of fans commenting on it instead. In 2020, MLB reversed course on a long-established content policy by going beyond simply allowing fans to post clips and highlights of MLB games. They introduced Film Room, a product that lets fans search clips, make reels, and post them to social media. This decision was made with intent – to take back control over how its media was being used online. “I think we’re at the point now where we believe that making our content available for our fans, particularly our younger fans, in a way that’s easy for them to consume, is really important,” Chris Marinak, MLB’s chief operations and strategy officer told Sporting News.

The International Trademark Association (INTA) on Friday filed an amicus brief with the European Union Intellectual Property Office’s (EUIPO’s) Grand Board of Appeal, arguing that “the terms ‘public policy’ and ‘principles of morality’ are inherently vague and therefore carry with them a risk of an inconsistent application and a danger of each examiner being tempted to follow personal preferences rather than clear legal guidance” with respect to a trademark on the term “COVIDIOT” not being “fully in line with public standards.” The case is Matthias Zirnsack vs. EUIPO, Case R-260/2021-G.

The European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) recently published a deep dive report, titled Study on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Infringement and Enforcement of Copyright and Designs. The report is a product of the Impact of Technology Expert Group, which was established in early 2019. They followed an approach based on Lawrence Lessig’s ‘Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace’ also known as the Code Theory. This describes how human online activity is regulated by law, social norms, and the market, taking into consideration the internet’s technical infrastructure. This approach led to a double-edged sword metaphor, in which a particular technology can be used either to infringe IP rights or to protect/enforce them, presenting to some extent the same features in each case.

A new study on trade in counterfeit goods that pose health, safety and environmental threats has found that China and Hong Kong account for some three-quarters of exports of dangerous counterfeits. It also found that online sales represent 60% of seizures of dangerous products destined for the EU. The 90-page study was published on March 17 and jointly conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). It is based on customs seizure data and other enforcement data from 2017 to 2019, as well as interviews with enforcement experts.