El boletín de noticias "The BARDEHLE PAGENBERG IP Report" provee información resumida acerca de las noticias y actividades de la firma, sobre la jurisprudencia europea y alemana más actual en materia de propiedad industrial e intelectual, y sobre las últimas novedades en el derecho de propiedad industrial e intelectual.

Si desea suscribirse de manera gratuita a nuestro boletín "IP Report", haca clic aquí.

Patent Law
1. German Federal Supreme Court: On the interpretation of the scope of protection of a patent claim and the role of the court expert (Decision of February 12, 2008, Case X ZR 153/05 – “Mehrgangnabe”/ “Multi-gear hub”)

2. European Patent Office (Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04): Protection of further medical uses – Swiss type claims under the EPC 2000 – technical effect underlying a known therapeutic use does not establish novelty (Decision of January 16, 2008 – Case T 406/06 – “Stimulation of beta cell proliferation”)

3. European Patent Office (Enlarged Board of Appeal): Petition for review of a decision of a Board of Appeal pursuant to Article 112a EPC 2000 – First case settled by the Enlarged Board of Appeal (Decision of July 15, 2008 – Case R 1/08 – “Injectable solutions containing paracetamol”)

Trademark Law
4. European Court of Justice: Likelihood of confusion when two Community trade marks are involved – Likelihood of confusion in a part of the Community sufficient – NOMAFOAM precludes registration of ARMAFOAM – (Judgment of  September 18, 2008, Case C-514/06 P – Armacell Enterprises GmbH v. OHIM – nmc SA)

5. OHIM permits substitution of an opponent’s Community trademark by national mark resulting from conversion in opposition proceedings (Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of July 15, 2008, Case R 1313/2006-G – Cardiva S.L. v. Cardima, Inc., CARDIMA/CARDIVA)

6. German Federal Supreme Court: On the scope of information to be rendered by an infringer of IP rights (Decision of February 14, 2008 – Case I ZR 55/05 – “Hollister”)

7. German Federal Supreme Court rules again on the scope of protection of 3-D trademarks and related protection under national “passing off” law (Decision of April 30, 2008 – Case I ZR 123/05 –“Rillenkoffer”/“suitcase”)

8. German Federal Supreme Court: Competitors using the designation “Post” for postal services are not infringing the trademark “POST” of Deutsche Post AG (Decision of  June 5, 2008 – Case I ZR 108/05 – “City Post” and Case I ZR 169/05 – “POST”)

Copyright Law
9. German Federal Supreme Court: On licensing stage performances of songs taken from musicals(Decision of July 3, 2008 – Case I ZR 204/05 – “Musical-Starlights”)

Enforcement Directive
10.  September 1, 2009: Enforcement Directive implemented in Germany

Firm News
Jochen Pagenberg voted for the second time Germany’s leading lawyer for patent and trademark legal expertise in “The International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers 2008”

Patent Law
1. German Federal Supreme Court on validly claiming the priority for claim with a limiting feature which was not disclosed in the priority documents (Decision of January 30, 2008 Case X ZR 107/04 – “Betonstraßenfertiger”/”Machine for producing concrete roads”)

2. European Patent Office: Amendments in opposition proceedings and objections to lack of clarity (Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.03, decision of February 21, 2008 – Case T 1459/05, not foreseen for publication)

3. Düsseldorf Appeal Court: In a pharmaceutical case, the Court granted a preliminary injunction against the offer and sale of drugs containing the active ingredient “Olanzapine” (Decision of May 29, 2008 – Case 2 W 47/07 – “Olanzapine”)

Trademark Law
4. European Court of Justice on comparative advertising and trade-mark infringement (Decision of June 12, 2008 – Case C-533/06 – O2 Holdings Ltd v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd – “O2”)

5. European Court of Justice on likelihood of confusion, complex trademarks, inherent and increased distinctiveness (Decision of July 17, 2008 – Case C-488/06 P – L & D SA v OHIM – Julius Sämann Ltd – “Aire Limpio”)

6. EFTA Court abandons rule of international exhaustion in trademark cases (Decision of July 8, 2008 Joint Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07 – L’Oréal Norge AS & L’Oréal SA v Per Aarskog AS [Case E-9/07], Nille AS [Case E-9/07] and Smart Club AS [Case E-10/07] – “REDKEN”)

7. German Federal Supreme Court: Genuine use of a service mark requires that the consumers or end users will recognise that the mark does not only identify the company, but also specific services (Decision of October 18, 2007 – Case I ZR 162/04 – “AKZENTA”)

8. German Federal Supreme Court on “smell-alikes” (Decision of December 6, 2007 – Case I ZR 184/05 – “Duftvergleich mit Markenparfum”/”comparative lists of perfumes” – and decision of June 6, 2008 – Case I ZR 169/05 – “Imitationswerbung”/“Imitative Advertising”)

9. German Federal Patent Court: The designation “Bio Bär” (“Bio Bear”) for gummy bears serves to designate the kind of goods, i.e., biologically manufactured gummy bears and is devoid of any distinctive character (Decision of April 2, 2008 –  Case 28 W [pat] 187/07 – “Bio Bär”/“Bio Bear”)

10. German Federal Supreme Court applies agent’s marks rules on business relationship which goes beyond mere exchange agreements, and clarifies other limits for applying agent’s marks rules (Decision of April 10, 2008 – Case I ZR 164/05 – “audison”)

11. German Federal Supreme Court: Injunctive relief may be claimed against online-auctioneers if vendors offer forgeries on the internet platform (Decision of April 30, 2008 – Case I ZR 73/05 – “Internetversteigerung III”/”online-auctioneering III”)

Design Law
12. Alicante Commercial Court: Joint action against Community trademark and Community design infringement (Decision of Dec. 4, 2007 – Case 152/2007 – L’ORÉAL SA v YESENSY ESPAÑA SL)

Firm News
BARDEHLE PAGENBERG opens office in Barcelona

Patent Law
1. European Patent Office (Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.01): Amendments in opposition proceedings and new grounds for opposition (Decision of October 30, 2007, Case T 913/05)

2. European Patent Office (Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.02): Patentability of dosage regime remains contested among the Technical Boards of Appeal – Enlarged Board of Appeal asked to give authoritative interpretation of the law (Decision of April 22, 2008, Case T 1319/04)

3. Düsseldorf Appeal Court: Implicit non-disclosure obligation by general terms and conditions of a contractual offer according to the legal principle of good faith (Decision of January 25, 2008, Case I-2 U 137/99 – Drahtinjektionseinrichtung/Wire Injection Device)

4. Düsseldorf District Court: Claim for recall and removal of infringing products from distribution channels (Decision of February 12, 2008, Case 4a O 427/06 – WC-Körbchen/WC-baskets)

Trademark Law 
5. European Court of Justice on likelihood of confusion (preliminary ruling): The famous Adidas THREE STRIPES prevail over a public interest argument (Decision of April 10, 2008, Case C-102/07 – Adidas v Marca Mode)

6. European Court of Justice: Review of Court of First Instance judgments (Decision of May 8, 2008, Case C-304/06 P – Eurohypo v OHIM; decision of April 17, 2008, Case C-108/07 P – Ferrero v OHIM; decision of February 15, 2008, Case C-243/07 P – Brinkmann v OHIM; decision of February 13, 2008, Case C-212/07 P – Indorata-Servicos e Gestao v OHIM – HAIRTRANSFER)

7. German Federal Supreme Court: Principle of fair hearing guarantees that the parties have the opportunity to comment on the facts and points of law and that the Court considers these comments (Decision of February 21, 2008, Case I ZB 70/07 – Melissengeist/Melissa Spirit)

8. German Federal Supreme Court confirms cancellation of 3D trademark registration for front lid of a car (Decision of May 24, 2007, Case I ZB 37/04 – Fronthaube/Front Lid)

9. German Federal Supreme Court rules on the liability for violation of name rights on eBay’s platform (Decision of April, 10 2008, Case I ZR 227/05 I – Namensklau im Internet/Name Nicking on the Internet)

10. Frankfurt Appeal Court again denies infringement of rights conferred by the Lindt Easter Bunny(Decision of November 8, 2007, Case 6 U 10/03– Goldhase II/Golden Bunny II)

Copyright Law
11. European Court of Justice on the concept of distribution to the public under the Copyright Directive (Decision of April 17, 2008, Case C-456/06 – Peek & Cloppenburg v Cassina)

Patent Law
1. German Federal Supreme Court allows intermediate generalisation in amendments of a patent application (Case X ZR 226/02 – Sammelhefter II/Stappler II)

2. European Patent Office (Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01) considers software for simulation of circuit behaviour to be patentable subject matter (Case T 1227/05 – Computer-implemented method for the simulation of circuit behaviour)

3. Düsseldorf Appeal Court broadens responsibility of forwarding agents for the handling of  goods, increasing requirements to verify compliance with German patent law (Case I-2 U 51/06 – Störerhaftung des Spediteurs/Liability of an international forwarding agent)

4. London Agreement enters into force on May 1, 2008

Trademark Law
5. European Court of Justice gives ruling in “Parmesan” (Case C-132/05 – European Commission v. Germany)

6. German Federal Supreme Court decides on the relation of Community trademark rights to company name claims (Case I ZR 33/05 – THE HOME STORE)

7. German Federal Supreme Court on acquiescence in parallel import matters (Case I ZR 147/04 – Aspirin II)

8. German Federal Supreme Court holds that the transit of goods, bearing an identical sign, through the territory of a Member State in which the mark enjoys protection does not per se infringe the holder’s rights on the trademark (Cases I ZR 246/02 – DIESEL II and I ZR 66/04 – Durchfuhr von Originalwaren /Transit of Genuine Goods)

Design Law 
9. Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market: Invalidity Division declares Community design protecting the design of the “Crocs” clog invalid (Case ICD 0000003010 – Holey Soles Holdings Ltd. v Crocs, Inc.)

Domain Name Law
10.  ICANN approves the Czech Arbitration Court as a new UDRP provider