http://www.bardehle.com/ News of Bardehle Pagenberg en http://www.bardehle.com/fileadmin/img/Bardehle_Pagenberg_icon.jpg http://www.bardehle.com/ 75 75 News of Bardehle Pagenberg TYPO3 - get.content.right http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Fri, 07 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0200 http://www.bardehle.com/en/publications/search_in_all_publications/document/ip-report-2013ii.html The current edition of our newsletter features the latest developments in IP Law. IP Report... Home Featured News Kanzleinews Fri, 07 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0200 http://www.bardehle.com/no_cache/en/news/news_of_the_firm/release/article/bardehle-pagenberg-successful-on-behalf-of-prada-milan-district-court-granted-broad-protection-of-p.html On March 28, 2013, the Milan District Court confirmed that sunglasses sold by PRADA S.A. under the... BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Studio Legale Casucci Ferretti STP (Milano):
Giovanni F. Casucci (Attorney-at-Law, Partner),
Niccolò Ferretti (Attorney-at-Law, Partner),
Serena Tavolaro (Attorney-at-Law) Representatives of NAU S.R.L.:
Studio Legale Cocuzza e Associati:
Claudio Cocuzza (Attorney-at-Law),
Sabrina Giani (Attorney-at-Law),
Stefania Sansò (Attorney-at-Law) Milan District Court:
Dr. Marina Anna Tavassi (Presiding Judge)]]> Kanzleinews Presscenter Wed, 29 May 2013 16:04:00 +0200 http://www.bardehle.com/no_cache/en/news/news_of_the_firm/release/article/german-supreme-court-dismisses-ritter-appeal-against-favourable-cologne-appeal-court-decision-obtain.html On May 8, 2013, the German Federal Supreme Court decided not to allow Ritter Schönbuch... for details see here). Representatives of Kraft Foods Deutschland GmbH:
Jordan & Hall (Karlsruhe):
Dr. Rainer Hall (Attorney-at-Law)
BARDEHLE PAGENBERG (Munich):
Dr. Henning Hartwig (Attorney-at-Law, Partner),
Prof. Dr. Alexander von Mühlendahl, J.D., LL.M. (Attorney-at-Law),
Dr. Philipe Kutschke (Attorney-at-Law)

Representatives of Ritter Schönbuch Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH & Co. KG:
Dr. Semmler (Karlsruhe): Dr. Jörg Semmler (Attorney-at-Law),
Gleiss Lutz (Stuttgart): Dr. Andreas Schabenberger (Attorney-at-Law) Federal Supreme Court (1st Civil Senate):
Prof. Dr. Joachim Bornkamm (Presiding Judge)]]> Kanzleinews Presscenter Wed, 22 May 2013 20:02:00 +0200 http://www.bardehle.com/no_cache/en/news/news_of_the_firm/release/article/bardehle-pagenberg-successfully-represents-microsoft-also-in-second-instance-proceedings-against-mot.html BARDEHLE PAGENBERG successfully represented Microsoft in appeal proceedings with which Motorola... BARDEHLE PAGENBERG (Munich):
Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy (Attorney-at-Law, Partner),
Peter K. Hess (Patent Attorney, Partner),
Nadine Heiartz (Attorney-at-Law),
Dr. Niels Malkomes (Patent Attorney)

Representatives of Motorola:
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (Mannheim):
Dr. Marcus Grosch (Attorney-at-Law),
Michael Krenz (Attorney-at-Law)

Munich Appeal Court (6th Civil Senate):
Konrad Retzer (Presiding Judge)]]> Kanzleinews Presscenter Tue, 14 May 2013 20:02:00 +0200 http://www.bardehle.com/en/publications/search_in_all_publications/document/ip-case-law-2012.html Download the IP Report 2012 Collection as "tablet friendly" e-book. ]]> Kanzleinews Home Featured News Mon, 13 May 2013 12:52:00 +0200 http://www.bardehle.com/no_cache/en/news/news_of_the_firm/release/article/another-victory-against-ritter-3-d-mark-bardehle-pagenberg-successfully-defends-several-mi.html Once again, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG successfully defended Kraft Foods Deutschland GmbH, Bremen, against... see also here). The Cologne Appeal Court (decision of April 12, 2013 – Case 6 U 139/12) confirmed the first-instance decision of the Cologne District Court of July 18, 2012 (Case 84 O 222/11), dismissing all of Ritter’s claims. Again, the Cologne Appeal Court did not allow Ritter to appeal the decision to the Federal Supreme Court. However, Ritter may file an appeal against refusal of leave to appeal. In the new case, Ritter challenged another variant of the “double-pack” 80 g Milka chocolate which had previously been held to be not an infringement of Ritter’s German 3-D marks for its square chocolate tablets. The earlier case is currently pending before the Federal Supreme Court on Ritter’s appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal. The Cologne Appeal Court considered the new action to be inadmissible because of the identity of the subject matter with the earlier case. In the new case, Ritter also challenged Kraft products “Lila Tender”, a chocolate cake product in a rectangular flow-pack, and “Lila Pause”, also a rectangular pack containing three chocolate bars “Lila Pause”. The packaging of all these products is mostly of lilac colour, showing the famous “Milka” logo and the Milka “Lila Kuh”, the widely used image of a cow in lilac. Ritter challenged the shape of these packagings as infringements of its registered as a 3-D mark, arguing, on the one hand, detriment to its reputed 3-D mark, and, on the other, likelihood of confusion, as well as claiming unfair competition. The Cologne Appeal Court rejected all of these claims. The Court considered the packaging of “Lila Tender” and “Lila Pause” not to be sufficiently similar to Ritter’s 3-D mark to create a “link” in the mind of the public, and also found that there was no detriment to the reputation of Ritter’s mark. Similarly, claims based on likelihood of confusion and on unfair competition were also dismissed. Representatives of Kraft Foods Deutschland GmbH: BARDEHLE PAGENBERG (Munich):
Dr Henning Hartwig (Attorney-at-Law, Partner)
Prof Dr Alexander von Mühlendahl, J.D., LL.M. (Attorney-at-Law)
Dr Philipe Kutschke (Attorney-at-Law) Representatives of Ritter Schönbuch GmbH & Co. KG: Gleiss Lutz (Stuttgart): Dr Andreas Schabenberger (Attorney-at-Law) Cologne Appeal Court (6th Civil Senate): Hubertus Nolte (Presiding Judge)]]> Kanzleinews Presscenter Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:54:00 +0200 http://www.bardehle.com/no_cache/en/news/news_of_the_firm/release/article/the-future-of-design-protection.html On the occasion to celebrate the cooperation between BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft and Studio... Luisa Bocchietto (President of ADI = Industrial Design Association, Italy), Daniela Mainini (President of CNAC = National Anti-Counterfeiting Council, Italy), Giovanni F. Casucci (BARDEHLE PAGENBERG) and Alexander von Mühlendahl (BARDEHLE PAGENBERG), to be concluded with an exclusive Italian-style buffet. Following some introductory remarks by Johannes Lang (BARDEHLE PAGENBERG), Luisa was to start about explaining the mission of ADI on design protection issues and supporting the enforcement initiatives, in order to highlight the value of the design. Daniela continued to speak on the role of CNAC in strengthening the institutional enforcement of the design, including substantive guidelines for improving design protection in Italy. Alexander decided to touch on the overlap and conflicts of design and trademark rights, providing a splendid overview on these up-to-date and critical issues. Finally, Giovanni delivered a synthesis about the critical pending issues, perfectly mixing both academic and practitioner’s needs and perspectives.  The speakers’ presentations are available here:]]> Kanzleinews Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:59:00 +0200 http://www.bardehle.com/en/publications/search_in_all_publications/document/ip-report-2013-special-i.html The current edition of our newsletter features the latest developments in IP Law. IP Report 2013... Home Featured News Kanzleinews Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:29:00 +0200 http://www.bardehle.com/no_cache/en/news/news_of_the_firm/release/article/european-parliament-approves-latest-amendments-on-unitary-patent-and-unified-patent-court.html On December 11, 2012, the European Parliament approved the latest proposals for a Unitary Patent...
Certainly, discussions on the pros and cons of the Unitary Patent system will not stop, even after ratification of the UPC Agreement by the cooperating Member States. It remains to be seen whether industry will rely on the Unitary Patent system in order to benefit from the Europe-wide enforcement of such patents or whether there will be a revival of applications for national patents in order to avoid the Europe-wide revocation of a Unitary Patent obtained. Further, during the transitional period, owners of European “bundle” patents need to carefully assess on a case-by-case basis whether to use the mentioned opt-out and opt-in mechanism. Reported by Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy and Dr. Thomas Gniadek in
BARDEHLE PAGENBERG IP Report 2012/V.]]> Gewerbliche Rechtschutz Infos Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:15:00 +0200 http://www.bardehle.com/en/publications/search_in_all_publications/document/ip-report-2013i.html The current edition of our newsletter features the latest developments in IP Law. IP Report 2013/I... Home Featured News Kanzleinews Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:29:00 +0100