intellectual property | In Principle

Go to content
Subscribe to newsletter
In principle newsletter subscription form

intellectual property

Rules for liability of the administrator of a website for unlawful content posted by users
Liability for content published on the internet infringing for example personal interests, industrial property rights or copyright may be imposed not only on the author of the content, but also on the administrator of the site where it was published.
Rules for liability of the administrator of a website for unlawful content posted by users
Risks and rules when cooperating with influencers
Whisper marketing is nothing new. Customers, especially younger ones, will lean toward a purchase if the good or service is recommended by a friend or someone they trust. They treat traditional advertising with increasing distance and scepticism.
Risks and rules when cooperating with influencers
Protection of catchphrases from films and TV shows
Catchphrases are intriguing not only as a phenomenon of social communication. They can also develop an economic dimension if they have marketing appeal. Consumers eagerly purchase T-shirts and gadgets decorated with amusing sayings, as a medium for expressing their own personality and preferences. What counts in this situation is to be the first to register the phrase.
Protection of catchphrases from films and TV shows
Dissemination of a person’s image as a detail in a larger whole: Theory and practice
Dissemination of people’s images is an essential ingredient of the media, both traditional and new. In an audiovisual work, the absence of human images strips the scene of human characters, and without them the media impact is lost. Under the applicable regulations, as a rule there is a duty to obtain the permission of the person whose image is presented, but consent is not required when the image of an individual constitutes only a detail of a larger whole such as a gathering, landscape, or public event. This distinction seems understandable and even intuitive, but how should it be applied in practice? The answer is not so obvious, and requires more extensive analysis.
Dissemination of a person’s image as a detail in a larger whole: Theory and practice
Using the image of a public figure in memes: Where is the boundary?
Internet users don’t need to be told what a meme is. But for the sake of order, according to Merriam-Webster, a meme in this sense is defined as “an amusing or interesting item (such as a captioned picture or video) or genre of items that is spread widely online especially through social media.” Memes have found a home in virtual reality, not only in sites especially devoted to memes but also in social media and news sites, where memes are often used to illustrate comments on current political events.
Using the image of a public figure in memes: Where is the boundary?
Negative PR against a management board member or finance director: Does it concern the company?
Can a statement concerning an individual employed by or affiliated with a company infringe not only the reputation of the individual, but also the reputation of the company? What sort of connection with the company, and what sort of comment, can have such results? What can be the practical consequences for example in litigation? The analysis below is devoted to companies, but the remarks are universal and may generally apply to any legal person (such as a cooperative, foundation, local government entity, and so on).
Negative PR against a management board member or finance director: Does it concern the company?
When does a journalist infringe a company’s reputation?
The press enjoy the constitutional freedom of expression and fulfil citizens’ right to objective societal information, oversight and criticism. Where is the boundary the media must not cross before colliding with the personal rights of others? Can journalists report news derived from third parties, and are they required to report only true information?
When does a journalist infringe a company’s reputation?
Type of trademark and evaluation of its genuine use
The Court of Justice has finally resolved the case of an EU trademark displaying an X on the side of a sports shoe. The German company Deichmann SE sought revocation of the registration, claiming there was no genuine use of the mark.
Type of trademark and evaluation of its genuine use
Manufacturing waiver weakens SPCs
Regulation (EU) 2019/933 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products entered into force on 1 July 2019. The regulation introduced a “manufacturing waiver” excluding certain acts by drug manufacturers in the EU from the protection awarded under supplementary protection certificates.
Manufacturing waiver weakens SPCs
Omegatiming is only for Omega. But what about megatiming?
Sometimes after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, or during the course of litigation, an infringer will replace its disputed name with a new, modified name. But often such changes are unsatisfactory for the plaintiff and are also challenged. Are the defendant’s prior actions and the designations previously used by the defendant relevant to evaluation of the new, modified designation? How to assess a situation where the defendant modifies its name while attempting to maintain continuity with the one it previously used?
Omegatiming is only for Omega. But what about megatiming?
Tic-Tac prevails in dispute over MIK MAKI dragee container
In a judgment of 6 March 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union gave its final ruling on a case surrounding invalidation of a community design presenting the box for MIK MAKI dragees. The invalidation was being sought by Ferrero SpA, claiming infringement of its registered figurative mark for Tic-Tac packaging.
Tic-Tac prevails in dispute over MIK MAKI dragee container
Specifying the type of trademark in a registration filing has far-reaching consequences
It has now been more than 18 years since Enercon GmbH, a manufacturer of wind turbines, applied to register a colour trademark with the EUIPO consisting of a pillar with stripes in varying shades of green and white. The ECJ issued a definitive judgment on the extent of the protection granted.
Specifying the type of trademark in a registration filing has far-reaching consequences