Europe

In the present case, the German Federal Court of Justice again had to deal with the question of how a representation of information within the meaning of Article 52(2)(d) EPC is to be distinguished from a technical feature.

The customs initiated an administrative court case at the Commercial Court of St Petersburg against Foreign Brands, a Russian company that imported goods labelled with a trademark "Dr Pepper Est. 1885." This is a routine procedure for customs authorities when they suspect transportation of counterfeit goods through the border. The owner of the trademark in such cases is a third person with limited participation in the proceedings

The newly-born Greek law on trademarks implementing Directive (EU) 2015/2436 has an attention-worthy provision, relating to the renewal of trademarks within their grace period. More specifically, the new Greek law on trademarks provides that the payment of the renewal fee can be made within the last six months of the protection’s term. It can also be made within an additional term of six months following the expiry of the formal protection’s term, subject to the payment of the renewal fee increased by 50% and without negating third parties’ rights acquired in the meantime.

Artificial intelligence (AI), which does not yet have a solid definition, can generally be described as “the ability of a digital computer or computer controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings.” AI systems have started to play a part in our daily life and today they carry out crucial roles for human beings. For instance, BlueDot’s AI system was among the first in the world to identify the emerging risk from COVID-19.

The 11th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Court of Appeals (CoA) has set forth in its decision dated November 18 2019 (2019/359 E. and 2019/7279 K.) that the later dated trademark application was filed in bad faith by taking into account the high level of recognition as well as the original and distinctive nature of the prior dated trademark, which has no meaning.

At the beginning of 1998, the EPO began allowing oral proceedings to be held as a video conference (OJ EPO 1997, 572). Video conferencing was only available for oral proceedings held before an examining division, i.e. prior to grant of the European patent. Oral proceedings before examining divisions are more suited to video conferencing as they are usually shorter and less complex than opposition oral proceedings, they are not open to the public, and only one party is present (the patent applicant).