Search

Boards of Appeal of EUIPO, Cases R 1410/2019-5, Manuka honey ; R 2110/2019-5, Bio-Mineralwasser I and R 2112/2019-5, bio mineralwasser (fig.) II , 27 October 2021 The Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) held that EU certification mark applications are, like any other EU trade mark (EUTM) application, assessed on all general grounds of refusal laid down in Article 7(1) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation 2017/1001 (EUTMR). However, when assessing the general grounds of refusal, the specific function of certification must always be kept in mind. In three different cases, the Fifth Board of EUIPO decided that the certification marks Manuka honey and Bio-Mineralwasser (as word and figurative mark) are non-distinctive and descriptive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Languages play a major role in trade mark law. Especially when it comes to the examination of EU trade mark applications, the number of official languages involved in this process is remarkable. While it appears that in the past there was a certain reluctance vis-a-vis the linguistic scope of assessment, more recently the EUIPO and the Boards of Appeal adopted an expansive approach. By expanding the scope of examination to "dead languages", colloquial language, minority languages and non-indigenous languages, in a certain way the ELI trade mark system also serves to promote linguistic diversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In its decision in VCAST Ltd v RTI SpA (C-265/I6)' the CJEU looked, for the first time, at cloud computing and its compatibility with EU copyright rules. The court held that a commercial undertaking providing private individuals with a cloud service for the remote recording of private copies of works protected by copyright, infringes the right holder's exclusive right to communicate to the public. The CJEU's decision is a severe setback for business models based on cloud technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In its decision in Soulier v Premier ministre (C-301/15),' the CJEU looked at the French licensing mechanism for out-of-print books and its compatibility with EU copyright rules. It held that national legislation which replaces the author's express and prior consent with tacit consent or a presumption of consent infringe the author's reproduction and making available rights. The CJEU's decision has far-reaching implications on rights management schemes operating with implicit or presumed consent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]