Dr. Florian Schwab discusses important case of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding genuine use of an EU collective mark for packaging system in WTR Daily

/in

Attorney Florian Schwab reports on a legal dispute before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on genuine use of a collective mark in the online portal of the trade journal World Trademark Review.

In the case Der Grüne Punkt – Duales System Deutschland GmbH v European Court of First Instance (EUIPO) (C-143/19 P, 12 December 2019), the CJEU, overruling the judgment of the General Court, has given guidance on the genuine use of a collective mark. The court fundamentally strengthened this type of EU trade mark as proof of genuine use of a collective mark concerning a system of collection and recovery of packaging waste was also accepted for countless (every day consumer) goods (such as beverages, foodstuff or clothing) on whose packaging the collective mark was affixed. .

Read the whole article here.

The article was published on 09.01.2020 in WTR Daily (part of the World Trademark Review).

Dr Martin Wirtz discusses current issues in trademark law in the Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte German patent attorney bulletin (1/2020)

/in

An article by BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner Dr Martin Wirtz was published in Issue 1/2020 of the Mitteilungen der deutscher Patentanwälte German patent attorney bulletin (p. 9 ff.), entitled “Aktuelles aus dem Markenrecht” (“Current issues in trademark law”). In this piece, attorney Dr Wirtz addresses a number of recent rulings and new developments in the field of trademark law.
Although the author’s article, in his own words, “does not purport to be exhaustive”, he does take a detailed look at new developments within the field in 2019.

The following topics of trademark law are discussed:
Registration/cancellation procedures, absolute grounds for refusal, identity protection/risk of confusion/protection based on reputation/protection of geographical origin, usage that preserves rights, infringing usage, proceedings.

The aforementioned article is the author’s 24th consecutive piece to be published. Dr Martin Wirtz has been writing reports about new rulings in the field of trademark law for the Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte German patent attorney bulletin for twelve years; these articles are published in the bulletin twice a year.

Read the whole article here (only available in German).

Dr. Sebastian Engels in WirtschaftsWoche: Trademark law in Beethoven’s anniversary year

/in

This year he would be 250 years old: Ludwig van Beethoven, eternal superstar of classical music and formative composer to the present day. Therefore, the efforts of numerous manufacturers to advertise their own products with “Beethoven” are undiminished. There is Beethoven beer, Beethoven tea, even a computer centre is adorned with the name of the famous composer. The list of entries in the trademark register is long. So the question remains, in what way the name of this unique musician may still be used without committing trademark infringement?

BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT attorney Dr. Sebastian Engels was interviewed on these topics by WirtschaftsWoche in the context of the article “Beethoven Anniversary Year – Who benefits from the Beethoven brand”.

Read the complete article here!

Breaking: Broad Institutes CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing patent finally revoked in Europe!

/in

Yesterday, on January 16, 2020, the Board of Appeal in the opposition proceedings for revocation of the European patent No. EP 2 771 468, Broad Institutes initial patent claiming the gene editing approach in mammalian cells, has been revoked after 4 days of intensive proceedings at the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich.

Nine opponents had filed oppositions against the grant of the CRISPR patent, and the appeal proceedings had been initiated by the Broad Institute after a first instance decision to revoke the patent in its entirety as not novel because of a defect in the priority claim. The Technical Board of Appeal yesterday confirmed the first instance decision surprisingly; since the day before it had indicated its preliminary inclination to refer this case to the Enlarged Board of Appeal – the highest judicial body at the EPO. However, after yesterday’s pleadings, apparently, the Technical Board changed its mind in a dramatic reversal of its previous announcements and dismissed the appeal. The patent remains revoked; the decision is final and cannot be contested for substantive reasons.

While a disaster for the Broad Institutes CRISPR patent portfolio, the decision will render development and business in the gene editing field in Europe possibly easier. From a legal point of view, the decision again confirms the long standing practice of the EPO to demand identity between the applicant of the priority application and the subsequent application, or an impeccable chain of transfer of the original priority rights to the non-identical applicant of the later application. This underlines the complexity and importance of establishing a correct priority claim under European law.