©-LAW

Is a functional shape eligible for copyright protection under the  InfoSoc Directive ? This, in a nutshell, is the intriguing issue that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been asked to address in  Brompton Bicycle , C-833/18 . As readers might guess, the shape at issue in this case is Brompton's iconic foldable bike, originally created in 1975 and sold in its current form since 1987: This morning, Advocate General (AG) Campos Sánchez-Bordona issued his  Opinion . He advised the Court to rule that, if the shape is  exclusively  dictated by the technical function of the relevant product, then no copyright subsists in it.  Whilst this conclusion appears reasonable and in line with existing CJEU case law, including - most recently - the  Cofemel  decision  [ here ; for a recent application, see  here ] , the Opinion appears to go a bit astray from that, at least in one notable respect (read on)....

The work at the centre of this litigation Does the inclusion of a work  [the photograph on the right hand side]  — which is freely accessible to all internet users on a third-party website with the consent of the copyright holder — on a person’s own publicly accessible website constitute an act of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive  if the work is first copied onto a server and is uploaded from there to that person’s own website? This is the question that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been asked to address in  Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Renckhoff , C-161/17 . This morning Advocate General (AG) Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered his  Opinion   [ not yet available in English] , and answered in the negative. Let’s see what happened. Background Well, the background is quite ... ridiculous (in the sense that it is ridiculous that litigation is brought in the fir...

AG Campos Sanchez-Bordona How should legal costs and other expenses borne by the successful party in relation to IP  proceedings be reimbursed by the unsuccessful party? This morning Advocate General (AG)  Campos Sanchez-Bordona  addressed this very question by delivering his  Opinion  in  United Video Properties, Inc v  Telenet NV , C-57/15, a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of Antwerp (Belgium) seeking clarification as to the correct interpretation of Article 14 of the  Enforcement Directive .  This provision states that:  " Member States shall ensure that reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party shall, as a general rule, be borne by the unsuccessful party, unless equity does not allow this." As the AG noted at the outset, this reference may appear limited in scope. However it raises "delicate legal problems", notably the effect of EU legislation on...