intellectual property | In Principle

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

In a judgment of 21 March 2019 (C-443/17) the CJEU reiterated the need for a precise and concise interpretation of the term “protected product” under Regulation (EC) 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products. The CJEU stressed that this term only applies to an active ingredient of a medicinal product, and not combination with other substances that do not have an independent therapeutic effect.

An amendment to the Industrial Property Law took effect on 16 March 2019, transposing into Polish law the Trademark Directive (2015/2436). The amendment is not revolutionary but will certainly have huge practical implications.

One of the changes in the amendment of the Industrial Property Law is that there will no longer be a graphical presentation requirement for trademarks. From 16 March 2019, it is possible for trademarks to be presented in any form using generally available technology, provided that they are presented in a clear, precise, independent, understandable, durable, objective, and easily accessible manner.

A licensee’s right to bring a legal action in proceedings for infringement of a trademark was introduced by the amendment to the Industrial Property Law. So far, in the case of national trademarks, only an exclusive licensee entered in the register could pursue claims for trademark infringement on an equal footing with the proprietor. This has changed from 16 March 2019.

Can a trademark owner require the publisher of a dictionary to indicate alongside the colloquial definition of a word that the word is a registered trademark?

The amendment to the Industrial Property Law in force since 16 March 2019 provides that a person whose services were used in an infringement is also liable for infringement of the protected right to a trademark. A trademark owner may demand that such a person refrain from infringing the trademark, turn over unjustly obtained benefits and repair the damage (where the infringement is culpable). Thus the new regulations introduce the intermediary’s own liability for trademark infringement.