Intellectual Property

Conflict between trademark and plant variety

In the decision of June 18, 2019, the General Court of Justice of the European Union applied Article 7, paragraph 1, m) of Regulation No. 2017/1001, which prohibits the registration of trademarks that consist of an earlier plant variety denomination registered in accordance with Union legislation” or “or reproduce in their essential elements, an earlier plant variety denomination”.

 

In this case, the German company Kordes filed an application for the European trademark “KORDES’ ROSE MONIQUE” in Class 31 for the following description of goods: “Roses and rose bushes as well as products facilitating the multiplication of roses”.  However, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) refused the registration of the trademark in question because it is composed of the term “MONIQUE”, corresponding the variety denomination “MONIQUE” registered in the Dutch register of plant variety protection.

 

 

To do so, the EUIPO must rely on the fact that the plant variety denomination “MONIQUE” is reproduced in the same way in the trademark applied for, and also the fact that this term is an essential element of the trademark.

 

Kordes appealed to the General Court of the European Union to reverse the EUIPO’s decision. In this respect, the company argued that the term “MONIQUE” cannot be considered as an “essential element”.  In addition, the company argued that the public would perceive the trademark as an indicator of roses of the “Monique” variety commercialized by the company Kordes.

 

The Court held that the distinctive and dominant element of the mark KORDES’ ROSE MONIQUE is the element “KORDES”, placed at the beginning, this word  is the essential element and the indicator of the source of origin. Accordingly, the Court considered that the variety denomination “Monique” cannot constitute an “essential element” of the trademark.

 

Consequently, the Court reversed the decision of the EUIPO refusing the registration of the trade mark KORDES’ ROSE MONIQUE.

Read More

Social networks and online reviews: how to defend against unfair competition

In a short time, networking sites have become one of the main channels for companies’ communication. eBay, Tripadvisors, Amazon or even the more conventional social networks such as Facebook or Twitter have, in fact, become preferential showcases for advertising. They do undoubtedly represent an opportunity for making a company visible, but they nonetheless pose a real threat to reputation. Companies are now faced with a new, major challenge in terms of unfair competition, that is to say “fake customer reviews”, that, although false, have a great influence on the consumption of the products and services they target.

The French Directorate-general for competition, consumer affairs and prevention of fraud (DGCCRF) revealed that 74% of surfers have already changed their minds about buying a product because of negative comments or reviews.

 

Faced with this hefty problem, companies endow themselves with legal instruments with the intention of stamping out such practices.

 

Disparagement and deceptive marketing practices

The case law has already determined in the past, that defamation cannot be a valid foundation for “judgements, even excessive, concerning the products or services of an industrial or commercial undertaking”.[1]

Concerning unfavourable reviews regarding a commercial activity, undertakings must base their case in the domain of unfair competition, particularly by referring to an act of disparagement. This practice consists in a person or an undertaking discrediting the goods or services of an undertaking with the intent to harm reputation. Like any act of unfair competition, the author of disparagement can be held liable on the basis of article 1140 of the Civil Code.

For instance, on this basis, the Court of Appeal of Paris ruled against a company selling food supplements which had strongly criticised the products of their rival on their site in the “product reviews” section, describing them as “crap” among other things.[2]

The Court had, in the case in point, also based its decision on article 121-1 of the Code of Consumption which sanctions deceitful marketing practices to the extent that such comments corrupt the natural behaviour of the consumers.

Similarly, sanctions had been pronounced concerning negative opinions of a restaurant which had not yet even opened when they were posted.[3]

New sanctions for false online reviews

Although disparagement and deceitful practices had been the traditional foundations concerning these exaggeratedly negative remarks, the legislator specifically intended to control and thereby punish these fake reviews.

 

In the light of this, three implementing decrees of the law for a Digital Republic entered into force on 1st January 2018. Introducing the new article L111-7-II of the Code of Consumption, they oblige undertakings and individuals whose activity consists in collecting, moderating or disseminating online reviews from customers, to provide fair, clear and transparent information on their processing and publication. This must be presented alongside said reviews, their date of publication as well as that of the consumer experience concerned and whether or not they underwent a control procedure. These decrees replace individual platforms’ voluntary compliance with the Afnor standard, which is supposed to ensure the fairness of the comments. It remains to be seen how the platforms will comply with such requirements.

This new obligation which imposes increased monitoring of such reviews on undertakings, shows that, although unfair competition was a convenient tool, case law has shown that these extensive large scale practices represented a real challenge for companies and should be framed by specific texts.

[1] https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/tribunal-de-grande-instance-de-paris-17eme-chambre-correctionnelle-jugement-du-13-fevrier-2014/

[2] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000018909511

[3] http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/10/27/2-500-euros-d-amende-pour-avoir-denigre-un-restaurant-sur-internet_4798047_3224.html

The firm Dreyfus & associés specialises in the field of intellectual property. Their team is up to date on the new developments in European legislation. They will be able to provide you with all the help and guidance you require concerning your intellectual property rights in Europe.

Read More

United Kingdom: The Trademark Office no longer collects and forwards to WIPO fees when registering an International trademark.

The United Kingdom Office has withdrawn its notification made under Rule 34 (2) (b) of the Common Regulations applicable to the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol.

As a result, since May 6, 2019, the United Kingdom Office no longer collects and forwards to the International Bureau of WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) the fees due under these regulations.

In other words, any payment of these fees pursuant to a registration requested of the United Kingdom Office must be made directly to WIPO, as is already the case in France. As a result of this administrative change, a payment can now be made in four ways:

– By debiting a WIPO current account;

– By credit card, but only for payments of fees related to renewal of registered marks, notification of irregularities issued by the Office, or for additional fees relating to the designation of additional contracting parties after the trademark has been registered. Such payments are made in Swiss francs and require a WIPO reference number;

– By bank transfer;

– By postal transfer for inter-European payments.

 

To be handled correctly, payments by bank transfer must include the name and complete address of the payer, the transaction code (EN), the trademark number, the trademark name, if available, or its verbal elements, and the name of the trademark holder, if different from the payer. In the case of multiple requests, a list containing each request and the amount paid for each request is also required.

It is important to pay all fees in full, otherwise an irregularity notification will be issued. This notification shall specify a payment period beyond which the request shall be deemed to have been abandoned.

As the United Kingdom Registrar no longer makes these payments to WIPO, it is up to the applicant or his representative to be vigilant and diligent when making them.

Read More

New French Decree on the protection of trade secrets : provisional sequestration of seized documents

French Decree No. 2018-1126 of 11 December 2018 on the protection of trade secrets, enacted in application of Act No. 2018-670 of 30 July 2018published in the Official Journal on  December 13, 2018 establishes new rules to preserve trade secrets.

This decree modifies the rules of protection of confidentiality for seized documents. From now on a provisional sequestration will include protection of documents that may contain information related to trade secrets.

Prior to the entry into force of the French act on the protection of trade secrets judges actively used the sequestration to protect confidentiality of seized documents. This decree legalizes the jurisprudential practice by introducing the provisional sequestration of seized documents.

Article R 153-1 of the French Commercial Code now allows judges, to directly order the provisional sequestration of seized documents, based on Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in order to ensure protection of trade secrets.

 

The decree amends articles R. 521-2, R. 615-2, R. 623-51, R. 716-2 and R. 722-2 of the Intellectual Property Code in the same way in order to give the same powers to the judges who authorize infringement seizures.

However, it is only a temporary sequestration of seized documents. For a period of one month, the party or third party claiming that documents contain trade secrets may ask the judge to amend or withdraw his order.

According to Article R. 153-3 of the French Commercial Code, it is the responsibility of the party or third party claiming trade secrets to ask the judge to withdraw his order before a deadline set by the judge. It is up to the party to provide the following:

– The full confidential version of the document

– A non-confidential version or a summary of the document

– A statement specifying the reason why the document or a portion of the document is considered a trade secret

The judge may also hear separately the holder of the document, assisted or represented by an authorized person, and the party that appeals the order.

In case the party claiming that the document contains trade secrets has not sent an application to withdraw or amend the order within one month, the judge may rule on the total or partial lifting of the sequestration. If it is lifted, the documents can then be sent to the applicant.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Read More

The importance of registering a rectification affecting an intellectual property right

 

After the filing of an intellectual property right, several types of changes are likely to occur, such as the owner’s move, the change of his name in a legal way or the assignment of his rights. Such corrections must be recorded in the relevant register, as this could have very damaging consequences for the holder.

Appropriateness of registration by the rights holder

By definition, registration is an approach made with the National Register of Trademarks, Designs and Patents by means of a paper or electronically, allowing the owner to notify changes in his intellectual property rights. This is important because it enables third parties to be informed of the ownership of trademarks, patents, designs and models as well as of the operations carried out on them.

Registries are national

In France, the National Registry of Trademarks only accepts registrations of trademarks whose effects are effective in France. Registrations concerning international trademarks are also impossible except in cases where they cannot be effected at the International Office (OMPI). This is particularly the case for the license, which must be registered directly with the National Registry in accordance with its own legislation. This is because the legislation of certain states such as Germany, Australia or New Zealand does not provide for the registration of trademark licenses, thus rendering their registration in the international register ineffective.

Changes affecting ownership or enjoyment of the trademark

According to Article L. 714-7 of the Intellectual Property Code, “any transmission or modification of the rights attached to a trademark must be registered in the National Register of Trademarks in order to be effective against third parties”. This article shows that if the assignee fails to register its assignment or trademark license, the assignee may not oppose these acts against third parties. On the one hand, this will prevent him/her from taking opposition action against a subsequent filing or in the context of a legal action and on the other hand, he/she may be held liable in the event of a mistake committed by the beneficiary of a trademark license, as stated in a judgment handed down by the European Court of Justice on 4 February 2016.

On the other hand, other more rare deeds such as mortgages, pledges or guarantees also deserve to be registered with the Registry, otherwise these deeds will not be enforceable against third parties.

Thus, licenses and assignments are not the only amendments requiring registration by the rights holder. The latter may indeed be affected by other operations although they are not expressly covered by Article L. 714-7 of the Intellectual Property Code.

These transactions include the following:

Total or partial withdrawal of trademark rights: where the trademark has not been registered, it is possible to withdraw or specify some goods and/or services, or to withdraw the entire trademark. You may find yourself in this situation if the proprietor of an earlier trademark believes, for example, that this new application infringes his rights and requires the withdrawal of certain goods or services or, more significantly, the withdrawal of the trademark.

The total or partial renunciation of the trademark: even if it is less common, these are cases in which modifications are requested after the registration of your trademark.

From a practical point of view, the right holder must also register in the Trademark Register:

The change of address explained by the fact that if the INPI is not informed and the owner of the rights is not represented by an agent, he may never receive a reminder letter to renew his trademarks.

The change of legal form (a SAS becomes an SA for example) because if the INPI is not informed of this change, it will refuse the renewal of the trademarks with the new data without justification.

The change of name as illustrated by the harsh decision of the European Court of Justice of September 8th, 2016 confirming that the holder must register his change of name in order to avoid being deprived of his rights.

Limits of registration by the owner of the trademark right

The corrections that the holder may enter are limited, and are limited to the possibility of limiting the protection of his rights. Therefore, it is impossible to modify your sign, name or logo, nor is it possible to extend the protection of your right by adding products and/or services through registration.

Registration: the solution against the loss of rights

Failure to register the above-mentioned changes can have very damaging consequences such as forfeiture of rights. Moreover, the positions adopted by the courts continue to be increasingly rigorous, prompting companies to systematically register events affecting all intellectual property rights or their holders in order to avoid all types of damage.

Registering changes affecting your intellectual property rights is an essential step in terms of protection. Dreyfus & Associés has experts in trademark law, as well as in national, European and international trademark registrations. Dreyfus & Associés is the ideal partner to support you in this process of securing and updating your intellectual property rights.

Read More