European IP Bulletin, Issue 88

|

Overview


In Depth

Copyright

Pub Landlords Found to Infringe the Premier League’s Copyright: Pyrrhic Victory After All?

In Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2012] EWHC 108 (Ch) Lord Justice Kitchin has now accepted that the Defendant publicans communicated copyright works contained in foreign broadcasts of Premier League matches to the public, following the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling to that effect in October 2011. However, in relation to the lawfulness of the Football Association Premier League’s licensing arrangements, Kitchin LJ was minded to grant a declaration to reflect the ruling of the CJEU that the agreements constituted a restriction on competition prohibited by Article 101 TFEU.

The Protection of Football Fixture Lists Under the EU Database Directive

On 1 March 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union passed judgement on Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd [2012] CJEU C-604/10concludingthat the football fixture lists in question are not protected by copyright as there is insufficient intellectual creation on the part of the author.

The “Innocent” Copying Defence: Only Applicable to Works Out of Copyright

In David Hoffman v Drug Abuse Resistance Education (UK) Ltd [2012] EWPCC 2, the Patents County Court of England and Wales assessed the use of the “innocent copying” defence under Section 97 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. The defendant mistakenly believed that certain photographic works were Crown copyright and therefore it had permission to use them.


Trade Marks

Advocate General Considers Jurisdiction For Claims of Infringement of a National Trade Mark Online

In Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH C-523/10 (Opinion of Advocate General) 16 February 2012, Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón considered that the proprietor of a national trade mark may be able to bring an infringement action in the Member State of registration against a third party that has registered a keyword used on a national search engine that is identical to the mark. This right was upheld even where the keyword is limited to searches carried out via the top-level domain for another Member State.

Composite Marks: Identity, Similarity and Likelihood of Confusion

In Ghias (t/a Griller) v Ikram [2012] EWPCC 3, Miss Recorder Michaels, sitting in the Patents County Court, partly upheld but largely dismissed claims of infringement under Section 10(1), (2) and (3) of the Trade Mark Act 1994 brought by a fast food business chain trading as “Griller”, against three similar businesses trading as “Griller”/“The Griller Original”, “The Griller King” and “Griller Hut”.

E-Privacy

Serious E-Privacy Breaches: ICO Guidance on Monetary Penalties

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has laid before the UK Parliament a draft of its new guidance on monetary penalties. The new guidance follows the introduction by the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 of additional powers to impose monetary penalties for serious breaches of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.

Confidential Information

Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and The Scope of The Intellectual Property Exception

In Stephen John Coogan v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 48 the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upheld orders from the High Court of England and Wales requiring the private investigator for the former News of the World newspaper, Mr Mulcaire, to provide information regarding his phone hacking activities, despite Mr Mulcaire’s argument that to do so would infringe his privilege against self-incrimination.

Registered Community Design

Registered Community Designs Can Infringe Earlier Registered Community Designs

The Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified the interpretation of the term “any third party” in Article 19(1) of the Community Designs Regulation (6/2002/EC) in its decision in Case C‑488/10 Celaya Emparanza y Galdos Internacional SA (Cegasa) v Proyectos Integrales de Balizamiento SL.