©-LAW

Blocking application Website blocking orders in IP cases (mostly, though not solely, in relation to copyright-infringing websites) are routinely granted in several jurisdictions, whether in Europe or third countries. The availability of such relief has been established in case law, administrative frameworks and academic studies alike. The Court of Justice of the European Union ('CJEU') expressly acknowledged the compatibility of such a remedy with EU law in its 2014 decision in  UPC Telekabel . Also the European Court of Human Rights  recently found  that, although it is necessary that this particular remedy is available within a balanced and carefully drafted legislative framework which contains a robust and articulated set of safeguards against abuse, website blocking orders are not  per se  contrary to the provision in  Article 10 ECHR . Over time, courts and other authorities (including administrative authorities in certain EU Member States) have dealt with applications whi

  Can a sign representing an artwork be registered as a trade mark? Can trade mark registration be used to monopolize artworks? If so, can any such intention and behaviour be repressed? The answer to all these questions is in the affirmative, as  Pest Control  – a handling service acting on behalf of elusive artist  Banksy  – learned yesterday, when the Cancellation Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)  ordered  that its EU trade mark (EUTM) registration representing one of Banksy’s best known artworks, the  Flower Thrower , be declared invalid on the ground of bad faith. Background In 2014, Pest Control obtained the  registration  of the figurative mark represented below as an EUTM in relation to goods and services in classes 2, 9, 16, 18, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 41, and 42. In 2019, Full Colour applied to obtain a declaration of invalidity for all relevant goods/services on grounds of bad faith under Article 59(1)(b)  EUTMR   and also pursuant to Article 59

IPKat posts as evidence in court? Why not! Image credits: Riana Harvey Does the disclosure in court proceedings of a work protected by copyright or related rights amount to InfoSoc Directive ? Is the notion of ‘public’ in the right of communication/making available to the public in Article 3 therein to be intended in the same way as the notion of ‘public’ in the right of distribution in Article 4? How can copyright protection be reconciled with transparency obligations? a ‘communication to the public’ and/or a ‘distribution to the public’ within the meaning of the  These, in a nutshell, are the issues that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will have to address when it decides  BY , C-637/19 , a referral made by the Svea Court of Appeal, Patent and Market Court of Appeal, Stockholm, Sweden. This morning, Advocate General (AG) Hogan issued his  Opinion , in which he advised the Court to rule that the electronic transmission by a litigant or a party to proce

Article 17 of the Copyright DSM Directive and the InfoSoc Directive: a special relationship? What is the legal nature of Article 17 of the  Copyright DSM Directive ? What is the relationship InfoSoc Directive ? between that provision and the  These questions, which  might  look at first sight academic in both nature and significance, are actually of great practical relevance, including to determine the room for manoeuvre enjoyed by EU Member States during the (ongoing) national transposition phase. In this sense, it is notable that the German Government has been moving from the idea that the freedom accorded under Article 17 is such that Member States are inter alia entitled to decide whether to introduce exceptions or limitations beyond  both  those specifically referred to in Article 17(7)  and  those listed in Article 5 of the InfoSoc Directive (see the proposed ‘de minimis’ remunerated ‘authorized use’ in  §6 of the German Discussion Draft Act ). The different vi

AG Saugmandsgaard Øe A few days ago, The IPKat  reported  on Advocate General (AG) Saugmandsgaard Øe’s  Opinion  in YouTube  and C-683/18  Cyando . When the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issues its judgment, it will have the opportunity to determine: Joined Cases C-682/18  Whether user-uploaded content (UUC) platforms like YouTube and Uploaded (the latter is a cyberlocker) do perform acts of communication to the public under Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive   [according to the AG, in principle, they do not] ; Whether the hosting safe harbour in Article 14 of the  E-commerce Directive  is in principle available to these platforms  [according to the AG, it is] ; How to interpret Article 14(1)(a) of the E-commerce Directive and Article 8(3) of the InfoSoc Directive. Possibly (though no questions have been expressly referred on this point), the CJEU will also consider a central aspect of the AG Opinion, that is the relationship between Article 17 of th