Bringing you regular news of key developments in European intellectual property law.
持续为您提供欧洲知识产权法律的关键更新。
PATENTS
专利
Positec Power Tools (Europe) Limited and other v Husqvarna AB [2016] EWHC 1061 (Pat)
Positec电动工具（欧洲）有限责任公司等诉富世华 [2016] EWHC 1061 (Pat)
Birss J has refused to make an order for disclosure on the issue of obviousness in a claim for revocation of a patent covering the guidance system for robotic lawnmowers.
In doing so, he has differed in his approach to the approach adopted by the Court of Appeal in Nichia v Argos [2007] EWCA Civ 741 on the basis that that decision is no longer a binding authority in light of the amendments to CPR Part 31.
The case provides some interesting guidance on the factors that the court will consider in making this assessment and highlights the cost-conscious approach of IPEC in such matters.
For the full text of the decision, please click here.
在某机器人剪草机引导系统专利无效请求中，Birss J拒绝裁定公开显而易见性的问题。
通过这一行为，Birss J 将自己的做法与上诉法院在Nichia v Argos [2007] EWCA Civ 741这一案件中所采取的方式区别开来。事实上，由于对CPR第31部分的修改，上诉法院对于该案件的判决已经不再具有既判力。
这个案子体现了法院在做类似决策时会考虑的因素并突出了IPEC在处理类似事务时所采取的注重节约成本的方式.
关于该决定的全文，请点击这里.
TRADE MARKS AND PASSING OFF
商标以及假冒
Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Case C‑30/15 P
辛巴玩具有限责任公司诉欧盟知识产权局Case C‑30/15 P
The Advocate General has delivered an opinion in the appeal by Simba Toys against the General Court’s decision that the Rubik’s Cube trade mark was valid.
The Advocate General argues the Court took the wrong approach to Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation 207/2009. This is the Article that specifically deals with objections to shape trade marks.
Under this Article trade marks which result from the nature of the goods themselves or are necessary to obtain a technical result are not registerable.
This is for public policy reasons to prevent trade marks being used to create an indefinite monopoly over certain inventions. If the Advocate General’s opinion is followed by the court then the Rubik’s Cube trade mark will be declared invalid.
For the full text of the decision, please click here.
辛巴玩具公司针对常设法院认为Rubik’s Cube商标有效的判决提出了上诉。对此，欧洲法院总检查顾问发表了自己的意见.
欧洲法院总检查顾问认为该法院对于Regulation 207/2009的第7条第1款适用有误。该条款专门规定了不能成为注册商标的情形.
根据该法条，如果某商标体现的是商品本身性质或者是获取某项技术成果所必须的性质，则不能被注册.
出于公共政策的考虑，上述法条的意义就在于避免利用商标造成针对特定发明的不特定垄断情形。如果总检查顾问的意见被法院采纳，Rubik’s Cube商标将会被判决无效.
关于该决定的全文，请点击这里.
Comic Enterprises Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [2016] EWCA Civ 455, 25 May 2016
漫画企业有限公司诉21世纪福克斯有限公司 [2016] EWCA Civ 455，2016年5月25日
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal brought by Twentieth Century Fox that the UK system of registering series marks is incompatible with EU law.
The appeal on this point of law was brought by Twentieth Century Fox in proceedings concerning their infringement of Comic Enterprises Ltd’s two GLEE marks.
The Court found that trade marks registered as a series formed a bundle of individual but similar trade marks which are registered under a single application number and which each fulfilled the relevant Sieckmann requirements that a trade mark should be clear, precise, self-contained, accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.
This was the last point of appeal before the Court of Appeal for Twentieth Century Fox, although it has already indicated that it may bring an appeal to the Supreme Court.
For the full text of the decision, please click here.
上诉法院驳回了21世纪福克斯有限公司关于英国注册系列商标系统与欧盟法不相符的上诉诉求.
21世纪福克斯有限公司就这一点所提出的上诉是其与漫画企业公司关于两个GLEE商标侵权案件的后续进展.
上诉法院认为该注册系列商标由不同但相似的商标组成，被登记在一个申请号之下，并且每个商标都符合Sieckmann要求，即每个商标都应该清楚、精确、独立、可感知、可理解、耐用以及客观.
这是21世纪福克斯公司可以对上诉法院提请上诉的最后理由，虽然该公司早就已表明将会对最高法院提起上诉.
关于该决定的全文，请点击这里.
R v Secretary of State for Health ex parte British American Tobacco (UK) Ltd and others [2016] EWHC 1169 (Admin), 19 May 2016
R诉卫生事务大臣、英美烟草（英国）集团等[2016] EWHC 1169 (Admin)， 2016年5月19日
Four of the world’s largest tobacco manufacturers applied for judicial review of the decision to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products.
They argued that the introduction of a requirement for plain packaging amounted to expropriation of their intellectual property rights, breached their rights to quiet enjoyment and possession of their property under the ECHR, and violated the principle that EU trade marks should be consistent across the community.
In addition they argued that the plain packaging legislation would not have its desired effect, and that it was therefore disproportionate, because the same objectives could be achieved in other ways.
The judge comprehensively dismissed all the arguments and upheld the plain packaging legislation, holding that the measures did not amount to expropriation and that the government’s action was proportionate to its public health objectives.
The judge also refused to award any compensation for the restriction on use of the tobacco manufacturers trade marks. For a fuller discussion of the legal implications please click here.
For the full text of the decision, please click here.
全球最大的四家烟草制造商对于采纳素面烟盒包装申请了司法审查.
他们指出采用素面烟盒包装的要求剥夺了他们享有的知识产权，同时也侵犯了受欧洲人权法院所保护的平静收益权以及财产权。另外，这一要求也违反了欧盟商标应当在欧盟范围内受到一致保护的基本原则.
此外，他们还辩称素面烟盒包装的立法并不能取得预期的效果，且相同的目标可以通过其他途径实现，因而该立法是不相称的.
法官全面否定了上述观点并坚持素面烟盒包装的立法，指出这一立法并不至于剥夺他们享有的知识产权，且政府的该行为与保护公民健康的目标是相称的.
法官也否定了禁用烟草制造商商标的赔偿请求。获取关于该判决意义的详尽讨论，请点击这里.
关于该决定的全文，请点击这里.
Skyscape Cloud Services Ltd v Sky Plc & Ors [2016] EWHC 1340 (IPEC) (08 June 2016)
Skyscape云服务有限责任公司诉Sky Plc & Ors [2016] EWHC 1340 (IPEC) (2016年6月8日)
The High Court has dismissed the claimant’s application for a declaration that their business name ‘Skyscape’ did not infringe the registered trade mark ‘Sky’ belonging to the defendants Sky Group.
In particular, the court found that the claimants had failed to discharge the burden of proving that their use of the mark ‘Skyscape’ created no likelihood of confusion with the trade mark ‘Sky’; that this use was not detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier well-known mark; and that no unfair advantage was taken of Sky’s reputation.
The case is a useful indication that, while declarations of non-infringement are in principle available in the context of trade marks, the burden of proving non-infringement falling on the claimants for a declaration of non-infringement will not be lightly discharged.
For the full text of the decision, please click here.
高等法院驳回了原告关于其商号”Skyscape”没有侵害被告Sky Group的注册商标”Sky”的诉求.
特别需要指出的是，法院发现原告并不能证明以下几点：首先，对Skyscape这一标志的使用没有造成与商标Sky混淆的可能性；其次，对该标志的使用不会对之前早负盛名的商标产生损害；最后，没有利用商标Sky谋取不正当利益.
这个案子表明，虽然声称未造成侵害对于商标案件而言至关重要，但原告承担的相关举证责任并不是轻易可以达成的.
关于该决定的全文，请点击这里.
