European IP Bulletin, Issue 34

| | |


In Depth


1. Five Year Interim Injunction in Copyright Case Continues

An application to dismiss an interim injunction granted in 2001, in the case of Clarke v Artprints UK, against the reproduction and distribution of several Francis Bacon works was unsuccessful, despite the length of time that had passed.


2. Yeda Research V Rhone_pulenc Rorer & Comptroller of Patents Designs and Trade Marks

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Yeda Research & Development Ltd v Rhône-Poulenc Rorer Holdings, Imclone Systems and the Comptroller, provides an interpretation of section 37 of the Patents Act 1977, in respect of patent entitlement proceedings. The judgment also considers the effect of the limitation period under section 37(5) on such entitlement proceedings.

3. To Amend or Not to Amend

On 7 July 2006, the High Court, handed down a decision in the case Vector Corporation v Glatt Air Techiniques Limited concerning an action for a declaration of invalidity of a patent belonging to Glatt.

4. Inventive Concept: Prejudice and False Prejudice

Case law at the highest level of appeal has noted the problems that courts face when establishing the inventive concept in a patent in suit. A recent case decided in the UK Patents Court has highlighted some of these difficulties.


5. “Warm Welcomes” Umwelcomed by OHIM

On 22 June 2006, the second Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation of the Internal Market (OHIM) rejected an appeal by Overseas Real Estate Limited to register “WARM WELCOMES” as a community trade mark due to lack of distinctiveness. The case reinforces the basic function of a registered trade mark that it must be able to identify the origin of goods or services.

6. Intel Corporation Inc. V CPM United Kingdom

Intel Corporation, which owns a large number of UK and Community Trade Marks, has failed in a bid to cancel the registered trade mark INTELMARK, owned by global marketing firm CPM.

7. Sergio Rossi V Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has held that the function of the Community Courts is to review the legality of previous decisions rendered by Community Offices or the Courts of First Instance, and is not intended to re-examine the facts.


8. Honda Giren Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Honda Motor Co. LTD)

On 30 and 31 August 2006, the Invalidity Division of OHIM made two decisions regarding Honda Motor’s requests in respect of the invalidation of two registered community designs. These two cases in industrial design field emphasise the substantiation requirements such as “novelty” and “individual character”.

Confidential Information and Privacy

9. Hughes V Carratu International PLC

The case offers clarification on the legal implications of the conduct of enquiry agents who, when obtaining personal information concerning members of the public, should keep in mind the rules set out in the Data Protection Act 1998.