• AMSTERDAM
  • BRUSSELS
  • DÜSSELDORF
  • MADRID
  • MANNHEIM
  • MUNICH
  • PARIS
Gepubliceerd Nid Taal Display Date Event Location Format Date Short description Source Berichttekst Post date Term
Nee 352 Willem Hoyng named 2011 Amsterdam Intellectual Property Lawyer of the Year by Best Lawyers 16 September 2011 Fri, 09/16/2011 - 02:00 Willem Hoyng was today named Asmterdam Intellectual Property of the Year 2011 by Best Lawyers.

Willem Hoyng was today named Asmterdam Intellectual Property of the Year 2011 by Best Lawyers.

For further information, please click here.

2011-09-16 Press
Nee 353 Academie voor de Rechtspraktijk 08 November 2011 Netherlands Tue, 11/08/2011 (All day) Marlou van de Braak will be lecturing at the Academie voor de Rechtspraktijk on Intellectual Property matters.

Marlou van de Braak will be lecturing at the Academie voor de Rechtspraktijk on Intellectual Property matters. Content of her presentation includes:

  • Liability of eBay and other marketplaces
  • Status of Google Adwords
  • Can filling constitute trade mark use?
  • Cross-border trademark issues
  • Brand Registration Issues
  • Developments in domain name disputes

Date: 08 November 2011
Time: 15:00 - 17:15

If you wish to attend, please register via the AvdR website (in Dutch only): http://www.avdrwebinars.nl/avdr_overzicht#9

 

2011-10-04 Events
Nee 561 Theo Blomme joins Hoyng Monegier LLP as counsel 30 August 2013 Fri, 08/30/2013 (All day) European intellectual property law firm HOYNG MONEGIER is delighted to announce that Theo Blomme will be joining the Amsterdam Office as of counsel. Theo specialises in IP litigation, with a particular focus on national and international patent cases in the fields of pharmaceuticals and telecommunications.

European intellectual property law firm HOYNG MONEGIER is delighted to announce that Theo Blomme will be joining the Amsterdam Office as of counsel.

Theo specialises in IP litigation, with a particular focus on national and international patent cases in the fields of pharmaceuticals and telecommunications. He is also an editor of Berichten Intellectuele Eigendom (BIE).

In addition to obtaining his MSc degree Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management at Delft University of Technology, he also studied Law at the universities of Leiden and Stellenbosch (South Africa).

Before joining Hoyng Monegier Theo advised clients at a large international law firm on patent-related cases. He has handled patent cases before the patent courts in The Hague and the Netherlands Supreme Court, as well as before the European Patent Office. These cases include patent matters in the areas of software and 3G technology (smartphones and tablets), pharmacy, biochemistry, electronics engineering and oil and offshore technology.

2013-08-30 Press
Nee 623 Premier Cercle Competition summit 2013 6 December 2013 Brussels Fri, 12/06/2013 (All day) Carl De Meyer will host an "invitation only" lunch on essential patents and FRAND at Premier Cercle's Competition Summit on Friday 6 December 2012.

Hoyng Monegier (Carl De Meyer) and Shearman Sterling (Miguel Rato) will host a lunch debate at Premier Cercle's Competition Summit on Friday 6 December. The lunch debate will handle questions about FRAND and essential patents. Rt Hon. Professor Sir Robin Jacob, Matthew Heim (Qualcomm), Hans Claes (Option) and Thomas Kramler (DG Competition) will be part of the panel.

For more information: http://www.premiercercle.com/sites/competition/2013/brussels2013/agenda2...

2013-11-29 Events
Nee 697 Dutch court rejects claims ZTE 29 October 2014 Wed, 10/29/2014 (All day) In its decision of October 24, 2014 the President of the District Court The Hague rejected the request by ZTE Corporation, ZTE Deutschland and ZTE Netherlands (“ZTE”) to order Vringo Infrastructure Inc. (“Vringo”) to stop the border detention measures based on the Anti Piracy Regulation and to release ZTE’s UMTS-products that were detained by Dutch customs in Rotterdam.

In its decision of October 24, 2014 the President of the District Court The Hague rejected the request by ZTE Corporation, ZTE Deutschland and ZTE Netherlands (“ZTE”) to order Vringo Infrastructure Inc. (“Vringo”) to stop the border detention measures based on the Anti Piracy Regulation and to release ZTE’s UMTS-products that  were detained by Dutch customs in Rotterdam. Click to read the Dutch or the English version of the decision.
Vringo, represented by Hoyng Monegier, is the owner of a portfolio of patents relating to 2G/3G/4G telecommunication equipment. The portfolio was transferred to Vringo by Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”). Nokia and thereafter Vringo have offered ZTE a license under the standard essential patents (SEPs) in this portfolio under “fair reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) conditions. Despite these offers, ZTE did not conclude a license agreement.

Starting in 2012, Vringo has instituted multiple infringement proceedings against ZTE, including in Germany, France, the UK, India, Brazil and recently in The Netherlands. In December 2013, the Landgericht Mannheim issued an injunction against ZTE to stop infringement of one of Vringo’s patents (“EP 119”).

On the basis of EP119, Dutch customs recently detained a number of ZTE’s UMTS-infrastructure products. In preliminary injunction proceedings instituted at the District Court The Hague, ZTE requested the release of these products and a prohibition against further border detention measures.
Referring to the recent decisions by the European Commission in the Motorola- and Samsung-cases, ZTE argued that Vringo’s enforcement measures violated its FRAND-obligations and constituted an abuse of a dominant position in accordance with article 102 EU-Treaty. The President disagreed and distinguished the case from the Motorola-case, in which Apple had been considered “willing” to conclude a license under FRAND-conditions. The President did not agree with ZTE that it could equally be considered a “willing licensee” stating that it could not be assumed for now that ZTE is in genuine pursuit of a license. The President also concluded that ZTE’s invalidity – and non-infringement arguments could not result in the release of the detained UMTS-products.

Following the detention of the products by customs, Vringo has started proceedings on the merits at the District Court The Hague in which the destruction of the detained products is requested. These proceedings are still pending. ZTE has until November 21, 2014 to appeal the decision of the President in the preliminary injunction proceedings.
The Hoyng Monegier team in Amsterdam acting for Vringo consists of Bart van den Broek, Frank Eijsvogels, David Owen, Robin van Kleeff and Andrew Lin. Vringo is also represented by other offices of Hoyng Monegier, including by our office in Madrid.

2014-10-30 Events
Nee 702 Hoyng Monegier acts successfully in copyright dispute re. a cloud service to record television programs 5 November 2014 Wed, 11/05/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier successfully represented SBS Belgium, a Flemish broadcaster, in a dispute before the Court of Antwerp concerning “Bhaalu”, a cloud service to record television programs.

Hoyng Monegier successfully represented SBS Belgium, a Flemish broadcaster, in a dispute before the Court of Antwerp concerning “Bhaalu”, a cloud service to record television programs, for which Right Brain Interface claims no copyrights are due, based on the “private copy”-exception in the Belgian Copyright Act. The Antwerp Court ruled in favor of the broadcasters (SBS Belgium, together with VRT and Medialaan) and declared that Bhaalu infringes the claimants copy- and neighboring rights because it copies television signals from an illicit source and communicates the copied signals to the public, even if the subscribers may lawfully receive the broadcast on a television receiver. Right Brain Interface must be considered as an intermediary whose services, used for such infringements, need to cease. Click here to read the judgment (in Dutch). SBS Belgium was represented by Fabienne Brison.

2014-11-05 Press
Nee 702 Hoyng Monegier acts successfully in copyright dispute re. a cloud service to record television programs 5 November 2014 Wed, 11/05/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier successfully represented SBS Belgium, a Flemish broadcaster, in a dispute before the Court of Antwerp concerning “Bhaalu”, a cloud service to record television programs.

Hoyng Monegier successfully represented SBS Belgium, a Flemish broadcaster, in a dispute before the Court of Antwerp concerning “Bhaalu”, a cloud service to record television programs, for which Right Brain Interface claims no copyrights are due, based on the “private copy”-exception in the Belgian Copyright Act. The Antwerp Court ruled in favor of the broadcasters (SBS Belgium, together with VRT and Medialaan) and declared that Bhaalu infringes the claimants copy- and neighboring rights because it copies television signals from an illicit source and communicates the copied signals to the public, even if the subscribers may lawfully receive the broadcast on a television receiver. Right Brain Interface must be considered as an intermediary whose services, used for such infringements, need to cease. Click here to read the judgment (in Dutch). SBS Belgium was represented by Fabienne Brison.

2014-11-05 Media & Entertainment
Nee 702 Hoyng Monegier acts successfully in copyright dispute re. a cloud service to record television programs 5 November 2014 Wed, 11/05/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier successfully represented SBS Belgium, a Flemish broadcaster, in a dispute before the Court of Antwerp concerning “Bhaalu”, a cloud service to record television programs.

Hoyng Monegier successfully represented SBS Belgium, a Flemish broadcaster, in a dispute before the Court of Antwerp concerning “Bhaalu”, a cloud service to record television programs, for which Right Brain Interface claims no copyrights are due, based on the “private copy”-exception in the Belgian Copyright Act. The Antwerp Court ruled in favor of the broadcasters (SBS Belgium, together with VRT and Medialaan) and declared that Bhaalu infringes the claimants copy- and neighboring rights because it copies television signals from an illicit source and communicates the copied signals to the public, even if the subscribers may lawfully receive the broadcast on a television receiver. Right Brain Interface must be considered as an intermediary whose services, used for such infringements, need to cease. Click here to read the judgment (in Dutch). SBS Belgium was represented by Fabienne Brison.

2014-11-05 Copyright
Nee 732 IP Lunch Debate: Parody in Copyright and Trademarks 27 March 2015 Brussels Fri, 03/27/2015 (All day) Fabienne Brison & Carina Gommers will kick off the first of a series of IP lunch debates with a presentation on the copyright topic: the exception of parody (the “Deckmyn” and “Tuymans” cases) and will discuss its possible effects on trademarks. For more information and for registrations, please send an email to brussels@hoyngmonegier.com

Fabienne Brison & Carina Gommers will kick off the first of a series of IP lunch debates with a presentation on the copyright topic: the exception of parody (the “Deckmyn” and “Tuymans” cases) and will discuss its possible effects on trademarks.
For more information and for registrations, please send an email to brussels@hoyngmonegier.com

2015-03-06 Events
Nee 851 FD: "Nieuw Europees patentrecht aanzet tot fusie topadvocaten" 1 June 2015 Mon, 06/01/2015 (All day) Het gerenommeerde advocatenkantoor Hoyng Monegier uit Amsterdam gaat fuseren met een Duitse branchegenoot. Het gaat om Reimann Osterrieth Köhler Haft (ROKH) dat net als Hoyng Monegier is gespecialiseerd in intellectueel eigendomsrecht en patentgeschillen.

Onderstaand artikel verscheen op 1 juni 2015 in Het Financieele Dagblad.

Het gerenommeerde advocatenkantoor Hoyng Monegier uit Amsterdam gaat fuseren met een Duitse branchegenoot. Het gaat om Reimann Osterrieth Köhler Haft (ROKH) dat net als Hoyng Monegier is gespecialiseerd in intellectueel eigendomsrecht en patentgeschillen.

Met de fusie lopen de kantoren vooruit op een grote verandering in het Europese patentenlandschap. Bijna alle EU-lidstaten hebben zich geschaard achter de oprichting van een Europese rechtbank die een inbreuk op octrooien grensoverschrijdend kan veroordelen.

Het gaat om een nichemarkt in de advocatuur, maar wel een belangrijke, gezien het toenemende belang van technologie en technologische doorbraken in de samenleving. Nu moeten bedrijven nog naar rechtbanken in afzonderlijke lidstaten. Daardoor krijgen ze te maken met een lappendeken aan wetgeving. Het zogenoemde Unified Patent Court (UPC) maakt daar een einde aan als het naar verwachting in 2017 van start gaat.

Managing partner Willem Hoyng noemt in een gesprek met het FD de sprong die zijn kantoor nu maakt ‘een strategische keuze’. ‘In Duitsland vindt de helft van de Europese patentgeschillen plaats. Het is daarom van belang daar ook vertegenwoordiging te hebben.’

Hoyng Monegier, dat vestigingen heeft in Nederland, België, Frankrijk en Spanje, werkte al samen met ROKH in grensoverschrijdende patentkwesties. De Nederlands-Duitse fusie brengt 150 werknemers bij elkaar, van wie 36 partners. De jaaromzet van het nieuwe pan-Europese kantoor zal volgens Hoyng ongeveer 45 mln zijn.

‘Nederland moet met patentrecht vooroplopen’

Willem Hoyng hekelt gebrek aan politieke wil om centrale rol te spelen in Europees octrooirecht

Aan grote klanten geen gebrek bij Hoyng Monegier. In het rommelige kantoor van advocaat Willem Hoyng op de 31e verdieping van de Rembrandttoren in Amsterdam staan bijna achteloos een blikje Red Bull en een wasmiddelpak van Ariël.

Hoyng (69) geldt als een nestor in de advocatuur als het gaat om intellectueel eigendomsrecht. Hij verdedigde niet zo lang geleden Procter & Gamble in een geruchtmakende kwestie: zou het Amerikaanse concern met Ariël inbreuk op octrooien van rivaal Unilever voor capsules met vloeibaar wasmiddel. Voor Red Bull beschermde zijn kantoor in de Benelux het handelsmerk van de Oostenrijkse maker van mierzoete energiedrankjes.

Hoewel grote internationale bedrijven Hoyng Monegier weten te vinden, voelt Hoyng de noodzaak een volgende stap met zijn kantoor te zetten. Vandaag kondigt hij een fusie aan met het Duitse Reimann Osterrieth Köhler Haft (ROKH). Het nieuwe kantoor gaat verder onder de naam Hoyng ROKH Monegier.

De fusie heeft alles te maken met een aardverschuiving in het Europese rechtssysteem voor de beslechting van internationale patentgeschillen. Al decennia wordt binnen Europa gesproken over een gezamenlijk octrooiprocesrecht. Sinds 2013 ligt er een verdrag dat voorziet in de oprichting van een Unified Patent Court (UPC). ‘Daardoor kunnen voor het eerst binnen Europa civiele zaken op federaal niveau worden geregeld’, legt Hoyng uit. ‘Eigenlijk zoals het in de Verenigde Staten ook gaat.’

In de praktijk hoeven partijen over anderhalf jaar niet meer in meerdere lidstaten te procederen als zij vinden dat hun patenten worden geschonden. Een uitspraak van een centrale rechtbank in Parijs, München en Londen, of een lokale divisie in bijvoorbeeld Den Haag, geldt in 25 EU-lidstaten die waarschijnlijk gaan deelnemen aan het UPC.
Alleen Spanje, Polen en Kroatië hebben aangegeven niet mee te doen. Procederen wordt door de Europese aanpak minder tijdrovend en minder kostbaar.

Een doorbraak is volgens Hoyng ook dat het Engels geaccepteerd lijkt te worden als belangrijkste taal in het nieuwe rechtssysteem. Zelfs Frankrijk, een felle beschermer van de eigen taal, heeft ermee ingestemd dat naast het Frans ook het Engels als procestaal gebruikt kan worden.
Dat taal niet langer een barrière hoeft te vormen blijkt tevens uit de komst van één Europees patent, ook wel een Unitary Patent genoemd. Nu is een Europees patent nog een bundeling van octrooien die zijn aangevraagd en vertaald in elke EU-lidstaat. In de nieuwe structuur voldoet een patentaanvraag in het Engels, Duits of Frans, wat overigens de reden is dat Italië zich lange tijd verzette en Spanje nog altijd niet van plan is deel te nemen aan het nieuwe systeem.

Onduidelijk is wanneer het UPC zijn eerste zaken zal behandelen. Verscheidene lidstaten, waaronder Nederland, moeten het verdrag nog ratificeren. Ook moeten er nog rechters worden geselecteerd die zitting nemen in de internationaal samengestelde colleges van het UPC. Hoyng verwacht dat het niet eerder dan 2017 wordt. ‘En het kan nog fout gaan als Groot-Brittannië uit de EU stapt.’

Hoyng, die nauw betrokken is bij de oprichting van het UPC, vindt dat zijn kantoor moet meebewegen. Het belang van een uitspraak wordt groter, omdat deze voor een veel groter gebiedt geldt. Advocatenkantoren zullen daarom grotere teams moeten optuigen voor klanten. Die klanten eisen dat ook.

Tegelijkertijd wordt het steekspel behendiger. Bedrijven kunnen ervoor kiezen om oude patenten nog niet onder het nieuwe systeem te laten vallen, zeker als zij denken dat een zwak octrooi in een klap van tafel kan worden geveegd. Dat vereist ook specialistische kennis. Hoyng zet daar sinds 2003 op in, toen hij samen met een aantal andere advocaten vertrok bij De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, een juridisch slagschip waarop intellectueel eigendom maar een klein onderdeel was.

‘Wij gaan met de fusie met ROKH niet voor groei’, zo stelt Hoyng. 'Wij blijven een boetiek. Maar we willen in staat zijn om overal goed te kunnen procederen. Daarom is het handig als je de krachten bundelt met een kantoor dat de lokale gebruiken kent.'

Hoewel Hoyng Monegier Nederland lijkt te ontgroeien, kan Hoyng zich nog wel druk maken over de kansen die de overheid laat liggen om van Nederland een belangrijke plek te maken voor de beslechting van patentgeschillen. Ons land heeft wat dat betreft een reputatie hoog te houden, zo zegt hij, ‘maar het lijkt nu aan politieke wil te ontbreken’.

Nederland heeft nog altijd het oprichtingsverdrag van het UPC niet geratificeerd. Ook maakt het geen haast om Den Haag, zijn eigen internationale juridische hoofdstad, te profileren als een lokale divisie naast de centrale rechtbanken in München, Parijs en Londen.
‘Dat is heel teleurstellend. Nederland zou voorop moeten lopen met een Europese patentenrechtbank, zeker als je een grote mond hebt over innovatie. Duitsland is nu al druk zijn rechtbank aan het promoten. Wij dreigen de slag te verliezen.’

Hoyng zegt niet voor eigen parochie te preken. ‘Je ziet ze bij het ministerie van Economische Zaken bijna denken: die Hoyng is advocaat, die wil geld verdienen. Maar als je je als overheid niet proactief opstelt, kan je veel expertise verliezen.’

Krachtenbundeling

De fusie tussen advocatenboutieks Hoyng Monegier en Reimann Osterrieth Köhler Haft (ROKH) brengt 150 werknemers bij elkaar, waarvan 36 partners. De jaaromzet zal zo’n €45 mln zijn, zegt managing partner Willem Hoyng. Het Nederlandse deel brengt twee derde van de partners in, maar Hoyng benadrukt dat het niet gaat om een overname. Er wordt geen geldsom betaald en Hoyng zal niet als een ceo het Duitse deel gaan besturen. De managing partner van ROKH bespreekt straks iedere dinsdag lopende zaken in een teleconferentie met de kantoren in Amsterdam, Madrid, Parijs en Brussel

Hoyng Monegier werkte al samen met ROKH. Drie jaar geleden aarzelden partners van ROKH nog over een fusie, maar dat veranderde door de aanstaande wijzigingen in het Europese procesrecht voor patentgeschillen.


Door Jeroen Segenhout

Dit artikel is verschenen in Het Financieele Dagblad van 1 juni 2015. Het auteursrecht is voorbehouden aan Het Financieele Dagblad.

This article is written by Jeroen Segenhout, journalist, and was first published in Het Financieele Dagblad of June 1, 2015. The copyrights relating to this article are held by Het Financieele Dagblad.

 

 

2015-08-17 Press
Nee 1814 Cross-border preliminary injunction awarded in the Netherlands 11 January 2017 Wed, 01/11/2017 (All day) HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER successfully represented its longstanding client Royal DSM, a global science-based company active in health, nutrition and materials, in PI proceedings in the Netherlands against Novozymes A/S, the Danish producer of industrial enzymes and microorganisms.

HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER successfully represented its longstanding client Royal DSM, a global science-based company active in health, nutrition and materials, in PI proceedings in the Netherlands against Novozymes A/S, the Danish producer of industrial enzymes and microorganisms. The litigation relates to the infringement of DSM’s European patent on lactase for use in the production of UHT milk, intended for people suffering from lactose intolerance. On 6 January 2017 the PI Judge of the District Court in The Hague issued an injunction against Novozymes with cross-border effect in all designated European countries, except for Germany and France where parallel litigation is pending.

This matter is handled by Theo Blomme, Jeroen den Hartog, Johan Elkenbracht and Léon Dijkman of our Amsterdam office.

2017-01-11 Life Sciences
Nee 1814 Cross-border preliminary injunction awarded in the Netherlands 11 January 2017 Wed, 01/11/2017 (All day) HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER successfully represented its longstanding client Royal DSM, a global science-based company active in health, nutrition and materials, in PI proceedings in the Netherlands against Novozymes A/S, the Danish producer of industrial enzymes and microorganisms.

HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER successfully represented its longstanding client Royal DSM, a global science-based company active in health, nutrition and materials, in PI proceedings in the Netherlands against Novozymes A/S, the Danish producer of industrial enzymes and microorganisms. The litigation relates to the infringement of DSM’s European patent on lactase for use in the production of UHT milk, intended for people suffering from lactose intolerance. On 6 January 2017 the PI Judge of the District Court in The Hague issued an injunction against Novozymes with cross-border effect in all designated European countries, except for Germany and France where parallel litigation is pending.

This matter is handled by Theo Blomme, Jeroen den Hartog, Johan Elkenbracht and Léon Dijkman of our Amsterdam office.

2017-01-11 Patent Litigation
Nee 1814 Cross-border preliminary injunction awarded in the Netherlands 11 January 2017 Wed, 01/11/2017 (All day) HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER successfully represented its longstanding client Royal DSM, a global science-based company active in health, nutrition and materials, in PI proceedings in the Netherlands against Novozymes A/S, the Danish producer of industrial enzymes and microorganisms.

HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER successfully represented its longstanding client Royal DSM, a global science-based company active in health, nutrition and materials, in PI proceedings in the Netherlands against Novozymes A/S, the Danish producer of industrial enzymes and microorganisms. The litigation relates to the infringement of DSM’s European patent on lactase for use in the production of UHT milk, intended for people suffering from lactose intolerance. On 6 January 2017 the PI Judge of the District Court in The Hague issued an injunction against Novozymes with cross-border effect in all designated European countries, except for Germany and France where parallel litigation is pending.

This matter is handled by Theo Blomme, Jeroen den Hartog, Johan Elkenbracht and Léon Dijkman of our Amsterdam office.

2017-01-11 Press
Ja 133 Hoyng Monegier opens its doors for business on 01-01-11 31 December 2010 Fri, 12/31/2010 - 01:00 HOYNG MONEGIER LLP officially opens its doors for business on 01-01-2011. The European intellectual property law boutique opens with four offices, in Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid and Paris. The firm starts with 19 partners and 30 associates, who advise across the full spectrum of IP issues and industry sectors.

Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid, Paris – 01-01-2011 HOYNG MONEGIER LLP officially opens its doors for business on 01-01-2011. The European intellectual property law boutique opens with four offices, in Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid and Paris. The firm starts with 19 partners and 30 associates, who advise across the full spectrum of IP issues and industry sectors.

The firm is delighted to announce the names of the non-Howrey partners that have also joined HOYNG MONEGIER as of 01-01-2011. Joining the Amsterdam office are Simon Dack and Marlou van de Braak, both formerly of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek. Joining the Brussels office is Benoit Michaux, formerly of Simont Braun, and joining the Paris office are Marie Georges-Picot, formerly of Cotty Vivant Marchisio & Lauzeral and Sophie Micallef, formerly of LMBE Avocats.

HOYNG MONEGIER is a one-stop-shop for IP in Europe, with a particular focus on high-profile and cross-border litigation. The group has extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the life science sector and the electronics field, and has built up an impressive record of trademark and copyright cases. The firm also offers patent, trademark and design prosecution services and manages the IP portfolios of some of its larger clients.

“We have a very clear message” says Willem Hoyng, the managing partner of the firm. “We are the only European niche IP Law Boutique of its kind. Our aim is to be the best, offering first class service and advice, with the leading specialists in IP”.

Name partner Denis Monégier du Sorbier said, “2011 promises to start extremely well; we are privileged to already have new work coming through the door in the form of high-profile cases, and many if not all of our existing clients have chosen to remain with us for their IP work. Just like them, we are very excited by this new venture”.

The founding partners of HOYNG MONEGIER are:
Amsterdam: Willem Hoyng, Bart van den Broek, Joris van Manen, Simon Dack, Wilbert Derks, Frank Eijsvogels, David Owen, Marlou van de Braak and Jeroen den Hartog.
Brussels: Carl De Meyer, Benoît Strowel, Benoit Michaux, Fabienne Brison and Steven Cattoor.
Madrid: Luis Fernández-Novoa and Laura Alonso.
Paris: Denis Monégier du Sorbier, Marie Georges-Picot and Sophie Micallef.

For further information, please contact:

Rose Abad
Head of Business Development
HOYNG MONEGIER LLP
Avenue des Nerviens, 9-31
B-1040, Bruxelles
+32 2 740 00 64
abadr@hoyngmonegier.com

Company Information
HOYNG MONEGIER is a specialised European intellectual property law boutique established on 1 January 2011. The firm has 4 offices, in Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid and Paris, with a total of 19 partners and 30 associates. HOYNG MONEGIER is a one-stop-shop for IP advice across Europe and across all industries and sectors.
Visit our website: www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com

2010-12-31 Press
Ja 138 New European IP law firm 10 October 2010 Sat, 10/09/2010 - 02:00 On 1 January 2011 (1-1-‘11), 12 European partners of the American law firm Howrey LLP are leaving to start up an independent European law firm of Intellectual Property lawyers and patent attorneys.

European offices split off from Howrey LLP

Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid, Paris, 10- 10 -‘10 On 1 January 2011 (1-1-‘11), 12 European partners of the American law firm Howrey LLP are leaving to start up an independent European law firm of Intellectual Property lawyers and patent attorneys.

The new firm which will be called Hoyng Monegier LLP, will be a full service intellectual property law firm (patent law and prosecution, trademarks, copyright, media and advertising) and will be headed up by 17 partners, spread over four offices, in Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid and Paris. At the start, the headcount will be approximately 70.

As well as the 12 partners from Howrey, the founding partners will include five other as yet unnamed partners from leading IP firms in Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris.

Name partners Willem Hoyng (Amsterdam) and Denis Monégier du Sorbier (Paris) are known as the “grand old men” of European IP law. Both of them chair, in their own countries, the AIPPI, the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property. The other partners, including Bart van den Broek and Joris van Manen (Amsterdam), Carl De Meyer, Benoît Strowel and Fabienne Brison (Brussels) and Luis Fernández-Novoa (Madrid) are all regarded as leading IP practitioners in their jurisdictions.

The partners are currently working closely together at Howrey in serving multi-national European and American clients. The group has been involved in many of the most important patent cases, particularly in the fields of pharmaceuticals and electronics. The group has also been involved in recently reported trademark and copyright cases.

The Amsterdam office remains in the Rembrandt Tower, where Howrey presently has its offices. All of the Amsterdam employees are leaving Howrey to join the new firm, as are the IP lawyers in Brussels and Madrid and (in part) Paris.

“1-1-11 is a good date for a new start” said Willem Hoyng, the managing partner of the new partnership. Hoyng was, for many years, a partner at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek and later joined the managing committee of Howrey, setting up Howrey’s European network.

“Patent, trademark and copyright law are becoming increasingly European. There is a clear need for European IP solutions and litigation strategies,” according to Hoyng. “We expect that we will be able to operate even more effectively from a European firm. We want to be the best European IP firm.”

For further information, please contact:

Rose Abad
Head of Business Development
HOYNG MONEGIER LLP
Avenue des Nerviens, 9-31
B-1040, Bruxelles
+32 2 740 00 64
abadr@hoyngmonegier.com

Company Information
HOYNG MONEGIER is a specialised European intellectual property law boutique established on 1 January 2011. The firm has 4 offices, in Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid and Paris, with a total of 19 partners and 30 associates. HOYNG MONEGIER is a one-stop-shop for IP advice across Europe and across all industries and sectors.
Visit our website: www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com

2010-10-10 Press
Ja 141 Sony wins preliminary injunction proceedings against LG Electronics; seizures of PlayStation 3 consoles lifted 10 March 2011 Thu, 03/10/2011 - 01:00 On 10 March 2011, Sony obtained an important victory in preliminary injunction proceedings against LG Electronics (“LGE”) before the President of the District Court The Hague, The Netherlands. Subject of the proceedings were about 300.000 PlayStation 3 consoles which were seized by LGE and detained by the Dutch customs authorities at the request of LGE.

On 10 March 2011, Sony obtained an important victory in preliminary injunction proceedings against LG Electronics (“LGE”) before the President of the District Court The Hague, The Netherlands. Subject of the proceedings were about 300.000 PlayStation 3 consoles which were seized by LGE and detained by the Dutch customs authorities at the request of LGE.

The seizures were based on asserted infringement by Sony of three of LGE’s Blu-ray patents. After hearing the parties, the President decided to lift the seizures and to order LGE to instruct the Dutch customs authorities to suspend the detentions on the basis of the Anti-Piracy Regulation (Regulation 1383/03 EC) pending the proceedings on the merits. Furthermore, LGE was ordered to pay Sony’s legal fees.

The HOYNG MONEGIER team representing Sony in this case consisted of Bart van den Broek, David Owen, Frank Eijsvogels and Geert Theuws, all working out of Hoyng Monegier’s Amsterdam office.

A copy of the judgment (in Dutch) can be found here.

A translation of the judgment can be found here.

2011-03-10 Press
Ja 146 Gimv wins European trademark cancellation case before the General Court 13 April 2011 Wed, 04/13/2011 (All day) HOYNG MONEGIER acted for Gimv (previously Halder Holdings BV) who argued that the Community Trade Mark “ALDER CAPITAL” was invalid in light of Gimv's earlier HALDER trademarks and trade names. Alders’ action was dismissed and they were ordered to pay Gimv’s costs before the General Court and the EUIPO Board of Appeal.

HOYNG MONEGIER's Amsterdam office (Marlou van de Braak) acted for Gimv (previously Halder Holdings BV) who argued that the Community Trade Mark “ALDER CAPITAL” was invalid in light of Gimv's earlier HALDER trademarks and trade names.

Alders’ action was dismissed and they were ordered to pay Gimv’s costs before the General Court and the EUIPO Board of Appeal.

Before the Cancellation Division, the case was decided on the basis of Gimv’s earlier trade name rights, but considered that there had been no genuine use of Gimv's earlier trade marks. When Alder Capital appealed, Gimv asked the Board of Appeal to also reconsider the findings on proof of use of its earlier trademarks on the basis of Article 8(3) of the Rules of Procedure which provides that the defendant may, in his response, seek a decision annulling or altering the contested decision on a point not raised in the appeal. The Board of Appeal did just that, accepted that the earlier trademarks had indeed been genuinely used, and Gimv won the case on the basis of their earlier trademarks, instead of the earlier trade names.

Alder Capital again appealed claiming that Community Trade Mark Regulation does not allow for an ancillary appeal and that Article 8(3) Rules of Procedure is invalid because the European Commission did not have the power to introduce by “tertiary” legislation, additional ways to appeal a first instance decision. Gimv argued that, regardless of this argument, the Board of Appeal may exercise any power within the competence of the Cancellation Division and is thus entitled and even obliged to examine genuine use of the trademarks on its own motion, whether or not Gimv had requested them to do so. Gimv also claimed, based on case law, that a separate appeal is not necessary if one is not adversely affected in first instance and that Article 8(3) is merely a rule of procedural efficiency and not legislation creating the possibility of ancillary appeal. The General Court rules that the Board of Appeal was indeed required to carry out a full examination, in terms both of law and of fact.

With regard to genuine, use some interesting considerations are that:

• Use of the term “halder” independently of any mention of corporate form or investment fund number constitutes use as a mark for the services referred to in the advertisements;

• Press articles can, in some cases, constitute evidence of use of a mark, since the list of permissible evidence is not exhaustive;

• The fact that the press articles were written by a journalist, and not by Gimv for advertising purposes, cannot mean that they have no evidentiary value;

• The use of “halder” to designate investment funds, which frequently take the form of separate companies, constitutes not only trade name use, but also use as a mark for the subcategories of financial services of such funds, since that use establishes a link between the sign Halder and such financial services;

• The fact that the names of the funds (Halder I, Halder II etc.) are composed of the term “halder” to which a number in Roman numerals has been added does not call genuine use into question, since because of their brevity, weak distinctive character and ancillary position, those additions do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered;

• EUIPO does not have jurisdiction to rule on compliance with financial regulations (Alder had tried to claim that Gimv did not have the right licenses, but that was incorrect), but for genuine use there is no requirement that the services provided are lawful or that the mark must be used in good faith.

Click here to see a copy of the full judgment of the General Court.

2011-04-13 Press
Ja 148 First anti-filing injunction PINK RIBBON trademarks 20 April 2011 Wed, 04/20/2011 - 02:00 On 20 April, the District Court of the Hague rendered judgment in the ongoing battle regarding the PINK RIBBON trademarks of the Pink Ribbon Foundation for breast cancer awareness.

On 20 April, the District Court of the Hague rendered judgment in the ongoing battle regarding the PINK RIBBON trademarks of the Pink Ribbon Foundation for breast cancer awareness. HOYNG MONEGIER (Marlou van de Braak) succesfully acted for the Pink Ribbon Foundation.

It is, as far as we are aware, the first time a court has ordered a party to refrain from filing for any Benelux or Community trademark applications (in this case PINK RIBBON trademark application), at a penalty of EUR 10,000 per day or per time that the defendant acts in breach of the order. This was found by the Court to be appropriate, even though it is a far-reaching measure given the statutory authority to file trademark applications. In this case, the method used by the defendant to file its trademark applications and conduct opposition proceedings was, however, found to be unlawful and an abuse of authority.

The circumstances of the case include that the defendant:

  • withdrew the applications straight after the Pink Ribbon Foundation had substantiated its oppositions and incurred a substantial amount of costs, and then filed new ones, or had them nullified straight after the Pink Ribbon Foundation initiated summary proceedings, by not paying the fees due;

  • filed its applications in various languages in order to increase translation costs for the opponent;

  • filed the applications in the knowledge that these could violate existing registrations, as follows from the evidence submitted by the plaintiff;

  • filed the applications for breast cancer related goods and services, but also for many other goods and services including “firearms”, “incubators” and carcinogenic substances such as “asbestos” and “tobacco”.

  • etc.

The defendant could not give any sensible explanation for this type of behaviour.

The PINK RIBBON trademarks were found to be valid (the defendant had claimed they were invalid on various grounds). The infringing defendants were prohibited by the Court from infringing the PINK RIBBON trademarks of plaintiff.

Click here for a full copy of the judgment.

2011-04-20 Press
Ja 233 Hoyng Monegier in Spain acts succesfully for Peter Taboada 23 May 2011 Mon, 05/23/2011 - 02:00 The Commercial Court no. 1 of La Coruña has accepted, in full, the claim filed by our client PETER TABOADA, against competitor Quantum Ingeniería Europea, in regard to unfair competition, infringement of registered design rights and infringement of copyright.


The Commercial Court no. 1 of La Coruña has accepted, in full, the claim filed by our client PETER TABOADA, against competitor Quantum Ingeniería Europea, in regard to unfair competition, infringement of registered design rights and infringement of copyright. Luis Fernández Novoa, José Antonio Sanmartín and Laura Cantero acted on this matter.

Today’s judgment (23rd May 2011), considers that the defendant (Quantum Ingeniería Europea), a company which was created by former employees of our client (PETER TABOADA), has:

1/ been manufacturing and marketing a machine model for water desalinisation which infringes the design rights of PETER TABOADA;
2/ unduly replicated several machines for water desalinisation originally created and designed by PETER TABOADA, with unfair abuse of the technical efforts carried out by the plaintiff, thus committing acts of unfair competition; and
3/ infringed the copyright of PETER TABOADA with the use of technical manuals which were plagiarised.

As a result, the defendant is ordered to:

1/ cease manufacturing and marketing the desalinisation machines subject to the proceedings;
2/ refrain from any future infringement activities;
3/ destroy any of the infringing products still in stock;
4/ compensate PETER TABOADA in the amount of 65.000€ for the sale of 8 infringing machines;
5/ stop using the technical manuals infringing the copyright of our client,
6/ bear the costs of publication of the judgment in two important national newspapers; and
7/ pay the costs of the proceedings to PETER TABOADA.

It should be pointed out that the Spanish Unfair Competition Act expressly accepts the free imitation of external business features and initiatives, unless protected under any exclusive IP rights. In light of this, it is worth highlighting that, in spite of this common principle, and with one of the plaintiff’s original machines lacking protection under any registered design rights, the judgment considers that in this case the actions of the defendant constitute an act of unfair competition, since the controversial desalinisation machines may not be deemed an imitation, but a pure replica of those of PETER TABOADA, made by taking undue advantage of the plaintiff’s efforts in their creation and development. In this sense, the judgment recognises that the defendant has not implemented any creative work but has, instead, merely misappropriated the plaintiff’s work, which determines the illicit nature of its activities.

A copy of the full judgment (in Spanish) can be found here.

2011-05-23 Press
Ja 236 Inaugural Women in Business Law Awards: Hoyng Monegier picks up the Belgium Award 30 June 2011 Thu, 06/30/2011 - 02:00 Euromoney Legal Media Group held their inaugural Women in Business Law Awards in London on 29 June 2011. We are delighted to announce that our office in Brussels picked up the best Firm in Belgium Award.

Euromoney Legal Media Group held their inaugural Women in Business Law Awards in London on 29 June 2011.

We are delighted to announce that our office in Brussels picked up the best Firm in Belgium Award.

The event celebrated the achievements of Firms in setting the standard in terms of female friendly work practices, and women leading the field in the legal sector across Europe.

For further information click here.

2011-06-30 Press
Ja 237 Euroforum Trademark and Design Conference 13 October 2011 Utrecht, the Netherlands Thu, 10/13/2011 - 02:00 Marlou van de Braak, Willem Hoyng and Carl De Meyer will all be attending the Euroform Trademark and Design Conference in October, in Utrecht.

Marlou van de Braak, Willem Hoyng and Carl De Meyer will all be attending the Euroform Trademark and Design Conference in October, in Utrecht.

Willem Hoyng, as well as being Chairman of the Conference, will be giving an update on trademark and design law, Marlou van de Braak will be speaking on Design Rights and Carl De Meyer will be speaking on ECJ case law regarding anti-piracy Regulation.

For a copy of the programme (in Dutch) for this event, please click here.

2011-10-05 Events
Ja 238 National Dutch Advertising Law Conference 16 December 2011 Netherlands Fri, 12/16/2011 - 01:00 Marlou van de Braak will be speaking on the topic AdWords at the National Dutch Advertising Law Conference.

Marlou van de Braak will be speaking on the topic AdWords at the National Dutch Advertising Law Conference.

Further information to follow.

2011-06-30 Events
Ja 239 Marques Annual Conference 13-16 September 2011 Baveno, Italy Tue, 09/13/2011 - 02:00 Marlou van de Braak and Laura Fresco attended the MARQUES Annual Conference in September in Baveno, Italy.

Marlou van de Braak and Laura Fresco attended the MARQUES Annual Conference in September in Baveno, Italy.

For a copy of the agenda from this event, please click here.

2011-07-01 Events
Ja 240 Een pleidooi voor enige demassificatie in het octrooirecht (A plea for deconsolidation in patent law) - Willem Hoyng 02/05/2011 Mon, 05/02/2011 (All day) This article was published (in Dutch) in the May edition of Berichten Industriele Eigendom.

This article was published (in Dutch) in the May edition of Berichten Industriele Eigendom.

A small synopsis follows in English.

Prof. Willem Hoyng, a long standing authority in patent law, recently published an article in which he advocates that a patentee who warns off customers of a competitor with patent infringement, is liable for damages if the patent is subsequently invalidated. He argues that the Supreme Court was wrong to let a decision of the Court of Appeal stand in which liability is only accepted if the patentee knew or should have known that the patent was invalid. In the case in question, the patent was invalidated on the basis of prior art in the possession of the patentee (in particular a brochure with respect to an older product of the patentee itself), which the patentee had not shown to the patent office during prosecution. He also criticises the fact that the Court of Appeal held that there is no positive duty to disclose relevant prior art to the patent office.

For a full copy of the article (in Dutch) please click here.

If you would like further information on the subject of the article, please contact Willem Hoyng.

2011-05-02 Publications
Ja 241 Hoyng Monegier off to a flying start 01 July 2011 Fri, 07/01/2011 (All day) After only 6 months in existence, HOYNG MONEGIER is prominently featured in the latest rankings of the most respected of the legal directories.

After only 6 months in existence, HOYNG MONEGIER is prominently featured in the latest rankings of the most respected of the legal directories. Some highlights are included below:

CHAMBERS EUROPE 2011 – IP RANKINGS
Recommended in Belgium, Spain and The Netherlands.
15 individuals recognised for their expertise.

“Sources await the impact this dynamic group will have on the market in times to come.”

For more information, click here.


WHICH LAWYER PLC. – IP SURVEY 2011
Ranked in Belgium, France, Spain and the Netherlands.
10 individuals recognised for their expertise.

For more information, click here.


WHO’S WHO LEGAL – PATENTS 2011

Recognised as one of the most Highly Regarded Firms with 7 individuals listed across Belgium, France, Spain and The Netherlands.

‘One client said that “these lawyers have broad experience, understand our business and have a clear, no-nonsense approach”.’

For more information, click here.


MANAGING IP HANDBOOK 2011

Recommended for Patents, Trademarks and Copyright in Belgium, Spain and The Netherlands.

For more information, click here.


IAM 250 – THE WORLD’S LEADING PATENT LITIGATORS 2011

Recommended in France, Spain and The Netherlands. (Belgium was not part of the survey)
5 individuals in the top 250 recognised as Leading Patent Litigators.

[The firms offers] “a formidable platform for multi-jurisdictional work”.


Willem Hoyng, managing partner of the firm said, "We are obviously very pleased that our firm has got off to a flying start, and grateful that our clients continue to put their trust in us. We have made a good start, which is reflected in the rankings. We will work hard to continue to improve".

2011-07-01 Press
Ja 243 Summary of the recent ECJ L'Oreal v eBay judgment - Laura Fresco 11/07/2011 Mon, 07/11/2011 (All day) Laura Fresco is an associate of Hoyng Monegier and a member of the Editorial Board of Intellectuelle Eigendom. She recently wrote a summary on the L'Oreal v Ebay judgment which was handed down by the ECJ on 12 July 2011.

Laura Fresco is an associate of Hoyng Monegier and a member of the Editorial Board of Intellectuelle Eigendom. She recently wrote a summary on the L'Oreal v Ebay judgment which was handed down by the ECJ on 12 July 2011.

To access her summary (in Dutch), please click here.

To access her summary (in English), please click here.

For a copy of the judgment (in Dutch), please click here.

2011-07-12 Publications
Ja 255 Hoyng Monegier obtains a preliminary injunction for G-Star against C&A 06 July 2011 Wed, 07/06/2011 - 02:00 On 5 July 2011, the District Court of the Hague in preliminary injunction proceedings ruled that the department store C&A infringes on the trademark rights of the popular urban fashion designer G-Star Raw with its “D STR” clothing line.

On 5 July 2011, the District Court of the Hague in preliminary injunction proceedings ruled that the department store C&A infringes on the trademark rights of the popular urban fashion designer G-Star Raw with its “D STR” clothing line. The court also confirmed that the G-STAR trademarks are well-known within the meaning of article 9(1)(c) of the Community Trademark Regulation (“CTR”) and article 2.20(1)(c) of the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (“BCIP”). HOYNG MONEGIER (Joris van Manen and Laura Fresco) represented G-Star in these proceedings.

The court ordered an EU-wide injunction against C&A Netherlands and an injunction for the Netherlands against Wehkamp, the online store which offers the infringing clothing for sale on its website, subject to a penalty of EUR 10.000 per day or EUR 1.000 per product. As a result, the “D STR” clothing was removed from all the Dutch C&A shops and the Wehkamp website within a matter of days.

According to the court C&A infringes on G-Star’s trademark rights in the meaning of article 9(1)(c) of the CTR and article 2.20(c) BCIP, by using the “D STR” sign in which a distance was created between the D and STR (for example, by placing the letter D in a circle, by omitting the vertical line of the D or by simply leaving a space between D and STR). In the opinion of the court, all this placed greater emphasis on the identical letters STR, as opposed to the use of the DSTR letters in a block.

The court noted that the additional circumstances of the case, namely (i) the identical nature of the infringing products and the products for which the G-STAR trademarks have been registered, (ii) the fact that these products are targeted at the same consumers, (iii) the strongly distinctive character of the G-STAR and (iv) the fact that C&A also unnecessarily imitates certain style elements on the infringing clothing that are frequently used by G-Star in a similar way, led to the result that C&A was gaining unjustified advantage from the reputation of the well-known G-STAR trademark.

The court argued:
“Evidently, C&A has tried to imitate the G-STAR trademark and the goods marketed under this trademark as closely as possible, in order to bring the G-STAR trademark to the mind of the relevant public and thus make its own goods appear more attractive. By acting thus, C&A profits from the popularity and attraction of the G-STAR trademark.”

A copy of the judgment (in Dutch) can be found here.
A translation of the judgment can be found here.

2011-07-06 Press
Ja 256 Hoyng Monegier successfully acts for Pink Ribbon on a word/device CTM application. 19 July 2011 Tue, 07/19/2011 (All day) On 18 July 2011, The Board of Appeal of The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) dismissed the appeal of Pink Ribbon, Inc. (the counterparty) against the Opposition Division’s refusal of its word/device CTM application for PINK RIBBON.

On 18 July 2011, The Board of Appeal of The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) dismissed the appeal of Pink Ribbon, Inc. (the counterparty) against the Opposition Division’s refusal of its word/device CTM application for PINK RIBBON. Pink Ribbon successfully challenged this CTM application in opposition proceedings based on its earlier PINK RIBBON trademarks. HOYNG MONEGIER (Marlou van de Braak) successfully acted for the Pink Ribbon Foundation.

A copy of the decision can be found here.

2011-07-19 Press
Ja 257 Hoyng Monegier interviews with International Food Ingredients Magazine on the proposed EU-wide patent 23/08/2011 Tue, 08/23/2011 (All day) Benoit Strowel and Steven Cattoor interviewed with International Food Ingredients (IFI) Magazine on 'the doubts about the likelihood - and benefits - of an EU-wide patent' in relation to the food and ingredients and pharmaceutical industries.

Benoit Strowel and Steven Cattoor interviewed with International Food Ingredients (IFI) Magazine on 'the doubts about the likelihood - and benefits - of an EU-wide patent' in relation to the food and ingredients and pharmaceutical industries.

Click here to read their views. If you would like further information on the subject of this article please contact Benoit Strowel and/or Steven Cattoor.

2011-08-23 Publications
Ja 258 Hoyng Monegier achieves another victory for G-Star against C&A 09 August 2011 Tue, 08/09/2011 - 02:00 On 9 August 2011, in preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court of The Hague decided G-Star’s claims were valid and C&A was infringing on G-Star’s RAW trademarks. This is the second victory for G-Star against C&A within a month.


On 9 August 2011, in preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court of The Hague decided G-Star’s claims were valid and C&A was infringing on G-Star’s RAW trademarks. This is the second victory for G-Star against C&A within a month.

The Court ordered C&A Netherlands and the online store Wehkamp to cease (i) the application of RAW, DIGGIN’RAW and DigginRaw signs on clothing and (ii) the distribution, sale and keeping in stock of such clothing in the European Union (C&A Netherlands) and the Netherlands (Wehkamp). The Court also granted G-Star’s claim for a recall and ordered C&A to provide certified information about the origin and the distribution channels of the infringing clothing, all subject to a penalty. Furthermore the Court ruled that C&A had to pay G-Star’s legal fees.

As a result of the judgment, C&A again was forced to remove a substantial part of its collection from its stores because of an infringement on G-Star’s trademark rights.

Last month, C&A was ordered to cease all sales of its D STR men’s collection to comply with an earlier judgment of the same court dated 5 July 2011 (click here for story and judgment), in which the Court ordered that C&A’s D STR collection infringes on the well-known G-STAR trademark.

HOYNG MONEGIER (Joris van Manen and Laura Fresco) represented G-Star in these proceedings.

A copy of the judgment (in Dutch) can be found here.
A translation of the judgment can be found here.

2011-08-09 Press
Ja 351 Hoyng Monegier acts for Ice-Watch against Lego 13 September 2011 Tue, 09/13/2011 - 02:00 HOYNG MONEGIER is currently representing TKS in a trademark infringement action filed by Lego on the ‘Ice-Watch’ packaging. TKS owns the ‘Ice-Watch’ trademark.

HOYNG MONEGIER (Carl De Meyer and Stephanie Hermoye) is currently representing TKS in a trademark infringement action filed by Lego on the ‘Ice-Watch’ packaging. TKS owns the ‘Ice-Watch’ trademark.

The TKS case concerns the validity of Lego's 3D trademarks for goods other than construction toys and questions whether, if Lego's marks are upheld as valid, an infringement can be upheld when there is mere use of the functionality as such. The main legal issue is therefore whether it is possible to secure trademark protection on a functional shape.

On 12 September 2011, Carl De Meyer argued (on behalf of TKS) before the Commercial Court of Brussels. The judgment will be handed down within a month's time according to the judge.

Click here for today's coverage in L'Echo (in French).

2011-09-13 Press
Ja 355 Hoyng Monegier acts for GSK against Colgate Palmolive 04 October 2011 Tue, 10/04/2011 - 02:00 HOYNG MONEGIER has acted successfully on behalf of GSK against Colgate Palmolive España, SA. The matter relates to advertising of the defendant’s toothpaste product “Colgate Sensitive Pro-Alivio”, and particularly the message that the said product was “the only toothpaste clinically proven to grant immediate and lasting relief” of dental sensitivity.

HOYNG MONEGIER (Luis Fernández-Novoa and Álvaro Velázquez) has acted successfully on behalf of GSK against Colgate Palmolive España, SA.

The matter relates to advertising of the defendant’s toothpaste product “Colgate Sensitive Pro-Alivio”, and particularly the message that the said product was “the only toothpaste clinically proven to grant immediate and lasting relief” of dental sensitivity. GSK claimed that the advert was misleading and exclusive advertising.

In a decision of July 7th, only recently published, the Spanish self-regulatory advertising body (Jurado de la Publicidad de Autocontrol) has held in first instance in favour of our client GSK. The Jury relied on the evidence submitted on behalf of GSK, which could not be rebutted by Colgate, demonstrating that the controversial message which placed Colgate in a prominent position in respect of competitors, lacks veracity since, there is at least one scientific debate showing that there are products other than that of the defendant which also provide immediate and lasting relief of dental sensitivity.

As Colgate was unable to justify its claimed supremacy and exclusivity, the Jury has understood that the said advertising is not truthful, and ordered the defendant to rectify it accordingly.

For a summary of the decision (in Spanish only), click here.

2011-10-04 Press
Ja 356 Hoyng Monegier acts for BAF against Telenet and Belgacom 06 October 2011 Thu, 10/06/2011 - 02:00 HOYNG MONEGIER has successfully acted for the Belgian Anti-Piracy Federation (BAF) against the two largest internet access providers in Belgium. Belgacom and Telenet have been ordered to initiate DNS blockades of at least 11 domains related to the Pirate Bay within 14 days or be fined.

HOYNG MONEGIER (Benoit Michaux) has successfully acted for the Belgian Anti-Piracy Federation (BAF) against the two largest internet access providers in Belgium. Belgacom and Telenet have been ordered to initiate DNS blockades of at least 11 domains related to the Pirate Bay within 14 days or be fined.

The Pirate Bay is one of the most famous pirate websites in the world which allows the unlawful downloading and sharing of music, film and television show files. The Antwerp Court of Appeal overturned the 2010 ruling of the Commercial Court of Antwerp, which said that blocking The Pirate Bay at the ISP level was ‘disproportionate’.

This is the first site blocking decision at the Belgian level, but follows a similar decision handed down in the UK by the High Court which granted an injunction to six major Hollywood studios forcing British Telecom (BT) to stop its internet users from accessing the Newzbin website which indexes and enables searching of copyright protected content.

This case has been distinguished from two other Belgian cases which are currently pending before the Court of Justice (EU): SABAM (Belgian Copyright Society) et al. v SCARLET and SABAM v. NETLOG which relate to an injunction to install a general filtering system to filter out any infringing file containing a work of SABAM’s repertoire. Benoit Michaux and Fabienne Brison are also acting for SABAM on both these cases.

2011-10-06 Press
Ja 357 Hoyng Monegier Amsterdam ranked in Iam Licensing 250 survey 18 October 2011 Tue, 10/18/2011 - 02:00 International Asset Management (IAM) released its "Licensing 250 - The World’s Leading Patent and Technology Licensing Lawyers" Survey this month.

International Asset Management (IAM) released its "Licensing 250 - The World’s Leading Patent and Technology Licensing Lawyers" Survey this month.

HONYG MONEGIER Amsterdam was ranked in the Netherlands section. Simon Dack, Frank Eijsvogels and Bart van den Broek were all ranked as recommended individuals.

To read the full write up, click here.

2011-10-18 Press
Ja 360 Leading IP and Regulatory team joins Hoyng Monegier LLP 18 October 2011 Tue, 10/18/2011 - 02:00 Liesbeth Weynants joins Hoyng Monegier on 18 October 2011 from Benelux law firm NautaDutilh and brings her team with her, which includes senior associate Christel Brion and junior associate Charlotte Weyne.

Brussels – 18-10-2011. Top intellectual property law firm HOYNG MONEGIER is delighted to announce the appointment of Liesbeth Weynants as a partner in its Brussels office.

Liesbeth joins Hoyng Monegier on 18 October 2011 from Benelux law firm NautaDutilh and brings her team with her, which includes senior associate Christel Brion and junior associate Charlotte Weyne. Liesbeth is an expert in patent and regulatory matters, and has a particular focus on the Life Sciences sector.

Willem Hoyng, Managing Partner of Hoyng Monegier said, "Liesbeth is a great addition to our firm. She is recognised as a leader in her field by both clients and peers. Liesbeth’s arrival gives us an additional edge over our competitors because of her extensive regulatory experience.”

Benoît Strowel, Managing Partner of the Brussels office said, "We are delighted to welcome Liesbeth into the Firm. Her arrival will help build on the success of our thriving intellectual property practice and her experience will add to our strength in the Life Sciences sector."

Liesbeth’s appointment brings HOYNG MONEGIER’s partnership to 20 since its launch in January 2011.

Profile

Liesbeth Weynants headed up NautaDutilh’s Life Sciences Group and Privacy and Data Protection Team.

In the life sciences sector, her practice includes advising research-based pharmaceutical, medical devices and biotech companies as well as industry associations and universities. She provides both transactional and contractual advice and litigation assistance in matters relating to intellectual property rights and regulatory issues not only before the courts, but also in relation to MA registration, pricing and reimbursement applications, clinical trials, compliance, advertising issues, etc. Liesbeth has extensive experience in late life-cycle management through regulatory and patent-based actions by innovative companies against generic producers, often provides pre-litigation advice and helps to develop patent portfolio strategies. Liesbeth also has an extensive data privacy and protection practice.

For further information, please contact:
Rose Abad
Head of Business Development
HOYNG MONEGIER LLP
Avenue des Nerviens, 9-31
B-1040, Bruxelles
+32 2 740 00 64
abadr@hoyngmonegier.com

Company Information
HOYNG MONEGIER is a specialised European intellectual property law boutique established on 1 January 2011. The firm has 4 offices, in Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid and Paris, with a total of 20 partners and 32 associates. HOYNG MONEGIER is a one-stop-shop for IP advice across Europe and across all industries and sectors.
Visit our website: www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com

ENDS

2011-10-18 Press
Ja 361 Lawyer monthly: France IP feature by Sophie Micallef and Marie Georges-Picot 24/10/2011 Mon, 10/24/2011 (All day) Sophie Micallef, our Paris Managing Partner and Marie Georges-Picot, a partner in our Paris office have been speaking with Lawyer Monthly around the issues surrounding IP in France.

Sophie Micallef, our Paris Managing Partner and Marie Georges-Picot, a partner in our Paris office have been speaking with Lawyer Monthly around the issues surrounding IP in France.

For a copy of the article, please click here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact Sophie or Marie.

2011-10-24 Publications
Ja 362 CEFI Seminar 25 October 2011 Madrid Tue, 10/25/2011 - 02:00 Luis Fernández-Novoa will be speaking at a CEFI (www.cefi.es) seminar titled: LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE ROYAL DECREE-LAW 9 / 2011. MEASURES AFFECTING THE PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR.

Luis Fernández-Novoa will be speaking at a CEFI (www.cefi.es) seminar titled: LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE ROYAL DECREE-LAW 9 / 2011. MEASURES AFFECTING THE PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR.

Luis will be discussing, "Dispensation and Substitution. Major developments in this area as a result of the RD 9/2011 of 19 August."

For a copy of the full programme (in Spanish only), please click here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact Luis directly.

2011-10-24 Events
Ja 363 Royal Bam wins General Court proceedings re Bam community trademark 26 October 2011 Wed, 10/26/2011 (All day) Today a decision was rendered by the General Court in a case by Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke against our client Royal BAM and the EUIPO (Case T-426/09). Our client Royal BAM won the case and the appeal of the adversary party is dismissed

Today a decision was rendered by the General Court in a case by Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke against our client Royal BAM and the EUIPO (case T-426/09). Our client Royal BAM won the case and the appeal of the adversary party is dismissed. Acting for our client was Marlou van de Braak.

For a copy of the decision, please click here.

A few interesting points have been highlighted by Marlou below:

1. It was confirmed by the General Court that a request to withdraw a trademark application cannot be taken into account by EUIPO if it is not submitted in one of the two languages indicated in the trademark application but in another language.

2. The goods at hand (rigid piping for building, transportable structures, building construction etc.) were not found to be similar to “asphalt and building materials derived from asphalt and for the production of asphalt”, even though there were certain connections between the goods. The General Court followed our reasoning that the goods in question have a different origin and physical condition, that their nature, purpose, composition, methods of production, use and distribution channels are different, and that the relevant public is composed of specialists whose level of attention is high and who will notice those differences.

3. If the Board of Appeal would make an error by erroneously restricting the scope of protection of the earlier mark, that would constitute an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (incorrect assessment risk of confusion), but not of Article 64(1) (misuse of power).

4. The adversary party had argued that its detailed arguments in relation to the high degree of similarity between the goods and services at issue had not been examined by the Board of Appeal (BoA), and that the BoA contravened to state reasons and infringed its rights of defence. The General Court considers that the BoA cannot be required to provide an account which follows exhaustively and one by one all reasoning articulated by the parties before it. The reasoning may therefore be implicit on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know why the decision of the BoA was taken and provides the competent court with sufficient material for it to exercise its review decision. The contested decision in this case is based on matters of law and fact on which the observations of the parties to the appeal proceedings were sufficiently gathered.

2011-10-26 Press
Ja 364 Knowledge Partner to IP Week 2011 6-8 December 2011 Brussels Tue, 12/06/2011 - 01:00 HOYNG MONEGIER is delighted to announce that it is sponsoring the IP Week 2011 Conference, 6-8 December in Brussels.

HOYNG MONEGIER is delighted to announce that it is sponsoring the IP Week 2011 Conference, 6-8 December in Brussels. www.ipweek.eu

We will have a number of attendees and have confirmed speakers for the following panels:

7 December
09.40: Unitary Patent Revealed: Putting the Finishing Touches – Willem Hoyng: Moderator

14.30: Protection Strategies and Anti-Counterfeiting Weapons – Carl De Meyer: Panellist

17.00: Life and Patents: The moral challenges of innovation: Simon Dack: Moderator

8 December
16.00: Innovation New Behaviours: Is collaboration changing the face of IP? – Luis Fernández-Novoa: Moderator

For a copy of the agenda, click here.

If you wish to meet any of our Partners at this conference, please don't hesitate to get in contact with Rose Abad, Head of Business Development.

2011-11-21 Events
Ja 365 ECJ hands down final judgment in the Nokia/Philips Referrals regarding Customs actions on goods in transit 01 December 2011 Thu, 12/01/2011 - 01:00 The European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down its judgment in the long awaited Philips and Nokia referrals on 01 December. EU Customs Regulations allow the Customs Authorities of the Member States to intercept goods that are suspected to infringe intellectual property rights.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down its judgment in the long awaited Philips and Nokia referrals on 01 December. EU Customs Regulations allow the Customs Authorities of the Member States to intercept goods that are suspected to infringe intellectual property rights. The regulations in place allow Customs Authorities to do so even when:

• these goods are declared in transit
• the goods are merely transiting the territory of the country in question, either to be shipped to another member state (so-called internal transit) or to a country outside of the EU (external transit).

However, following earlier judgments handed down by the ECJ in the Class International and Montex cases, the system in place came under pressure, becoming the subject of rather sharp criticism. In both Class International and Montex the ECJ held that under harmonised trademark law, goods in transit do not infringe upon the exclusive rights of a trademark owner, unless the trademark owner can demonstrate that the goods are intended to be put on the market in the country in question. It is generally accepted that the same rule applies for other intellectual property rights as well.

In contrast, the Dutch Supreme Court decided that the absence of any remedy against goods in transit under national patent law did not prevent the Customs Authorities from intercepting the goods and the patentee from seeking destruction thereof. This has been justified on the basis of the so-called fiction of local manufacturing as provided by Article 6 of the Old Customs Regulation and Article 10 in combination with consideration 8 of the New Customs Regulations: when assessing infringement under the Customs Regulation, the goods must be assumed to have been manufactured in the country where the goods are intercepted.

In its judgment of December 1, however, the ECJ has dismissed the reasoning followed by the Dutch Supreme Court. The fiction of local manufacturing in the Old and the New Customs Regulations does not imply that goods declared in transit should be considered to infringe under local law on the basis of the fiction that these goods have been manufactured locally (answer to the Philips question). But, Customs Authorities must, as soon as there are indications before it giving ground for suspecting that such an infringement exists, suspend the release of or detain those goods and those indications may include, inter alia, the fact that the destination of the goods is not declared, whereas the suspensive procedure requested requires such a declaration, the lack of precise or reliable information as to the identity or address of the manufacturer or consignor of the goods, or a lack of cooperation with the Customs Authorities (answer to the Nokia question).

This judgment of the ECJ is very important. Most of the goods that enter the European Union are declared in transit because they are not intended to be put on the market in the country where the goods are being imported and/or because the final destination in the European Union is not yet known.

Although the ECJ seems to allow for Customs interception of goods in transit relatively easily, on the basis of indications that the goods may be put on the EU market, such indications would as such not be sufficient to establish infringement before the national courts.

Establishing infringement of goods in transit shall remain problematic. Hopefully the EU Commission will be sensitive to this issue and provide a new solution. Unfortunately, the proposal for a new Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights published by the Commission in May of this year, does not yet provide a solution and this has been made clear during the sessions held at the European Parliament 2 weeks ago.

Only the future will tell whether the Commission can work out a solution and find an equitable balance between effective action against any act of infringement of Intellectual Property Rights and avoid creating barriers to legitimate international trade, as provided by Article 41 (1) of TRIPS. As shown in the ACTA saga, however, finding such a balance is quite a challenge and it remains to be seen whether the Commission will succeed.

Hoyng Monegier has played a prominent role in the Nokia and Philips referrals, with Partner, Carl De Meyer and Senior Associate, Carina Gommers representing Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV.

If you have any questions in connection with this case, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Carl De Meyer
+32 2 740 00 03
demeyerc@hoyngmonegier.com

Carina Gommers
+32 2 740 00 07
gommersc@hoyngmonegier.com

2011-12-01 Press
Ja 366 The Advocate General (AG) delivers ground-breaking opinion on acceptability and scope of protection for class headings 06 December 2011 Tue, 12/06/2011 (All day) The Advocate General (AG) has delivered an opinion on whether a trade mark application that designates a class heading of the Nice Classification for the goods or services for which registration is sought can be considered to cover all the goods or services in that class, as interpreted by the President of EUIPO in Communication No 4/03.

The Advocate General (AG) has delivered an opinion on whether a trade mark application that designates a class heading of the Nice Classification for the goods or services for which registration is sought can be considered to cover all the goods or services in that class, as interpreted by the President of EUIPO in Communication No 4/03.

Laura Alonso explores the opinion in more detail:

The Communication No 4/03 of the President of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 June 2003 basically states that when an applicant has filed a CTM for all the goods/services in a class heading, the application is deemed to be granted for every good included in such class, even when the good or product in question is not expressly listed in the class heading itself.

The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (‘CIPA’) applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks (‘Registrar’), on 16 October 2009, for registration of the designation ‘IP TRANSLATOR’ for the products in Class 41 of the Nice Classification, headed ‘Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities’. The Registrar examined that application on the basis of Communication No 4/03 and refused it on the grounds that the expression IP TRANSLATOR was found to be descriptive in relation to translation services, which are deemed to be included within class 41 and therefore included in all applications for the class heading in class 41 according to the interpretation contained in Communication No. 4/03 of the President of the EUIPO. CIPA appealed against that decision, contending that its application for registration did not specify and was not intended to cover the translation services in Class 41 of the Nice Classification.

The national referring court questions whether the interpretation under Communication No. 4/03 is compatible with the requirement for the various goods and services covered by a trade mark application to be identified with clarity and precision and refers the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘In the context of the Directive:
1/ Is it necessary for the various goods or services covered by a trade mark application to be identified with any, and if so what particular, degree of clarity and precision?
2/ Is it permissible to use the general words of the class headings of the [Nice Classification] for the purpose of identifying the various goods or services covered by a trade mark application?
3/ Is it necessary or permissible for such use of the general words of the Class Headings of [the Nice Classification] to be interpreted in accordance with Communication No 4/03 ...?’

The need for harmonisation

The AG observes that uniform protection of the trade mark over the whole of the territory of the Union requires an approximation of the national legislations relating to the identification of goods or services and that it is essential to define a common approach in this respect, as regards registration of a national trade mark and of a Community trade mark. In the AG’s view, otherwise the trade mark registration scheme in the Union may suffer, as a result of inconsistencies, significant legal uncertainty and may also encourage forum-shopping.

The reply to the first question: The need for clarity and precision

As regards the first question, the AG recalls that in Sieckmann, relating to the possibility of registering an olfactory mark, the Court called for the graphic representation of the sign to be “clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable, unequivocal and objective” and considers that those requirements reflect two specific objectives. One is to enable the competent authorities to know with clarity and precision the nature of the signs of which a mark consists in order to carry out the prior examination of applications for registration and to publish and maintain an appropriate and precise register of trade marks and the other is to enable economic operators to acquaint themselves, with clarity and precision, with registrations or applications for registration made by their actual or potential competitors, and thus to obtain relevant information about the rights of third parties. In the Advocate General’s view, those objectives cannot be attained if the goods and services for which the applicant seeks protection could not be clearly identified.

In the AG’s view, those requirements may only be satisfied by a specific list of each of the goods and services for which the applicant seeks protection or by identification of the basic goods or services enabling the competent authorities and economic operators to determine the essential characteristics and objective properties of the goods and services concerned.

The reply to the second question: The concept of ‘clear’ and ‘precise’ specifications

As regards the second question, the AG concludes that it is permissible in many cases to use the general words of the class heading of the Nice Classification for the purpose of identifying the various goods and services covered by a trademark application, provided that they are, in themselves, sufficiently clear and precise to enable the competent authorities and economic operators to determine the scope of the protection conferred by the trade mark. The AG mentions soaps’ or ‘cutlery’, taken from class headings 3 and 8 respectively of the Nice Classification, as samples of clear and precise wordings.

The reply to the third question: Are class headings sufficiently clear and precise specifications

With respect to the third question, the AG preliminarily reminds that the Communication 4/03 of the President of the EUIPO is only informative and explanatory in nature, it is not legally binding and must therefore guarantee respect for the rules laid down in the Regulation, as interpreted by the Court, and for the rights conferred on the interested parties. In the AG’s view, the principle that a class heading covers every good or service listed for that class implies almost an unlimited exclusive right for the owner of the trademark application over the goods in such class and it does not guarantee observance of the speciality principle. The AG mentions as an example the terms ‘personal and social services rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals’ in the class heading of class 45, which would give rights to the trademark owner over extremely varied services, not having any common characteristics, such as ‘dating services’, ‘horoscope casting’, ‘detective agencies’ and ‘crematorium services’. Moreover, the AG states that the principle that a class heading covers all goods in such class does not ensure genuine use of the trade mark, since it is clear from the outset that the mark will not be used for all the goods covered by the class heading. In fact, the AG, following AG Léger’s opinion in case C-418/02 Praktiker Bau- und Heimwerkermärkte, states that to initiate proceedings for revocation of the rights of the proprietor is inappropriate where it is established at the outset that the mark will be used only in relation with certain goods or services.

Additionally, the AG reminds that the class headings in the Nice Classification require of explanatory notes which show that certain goods and services may, in the absence of any explanation, come under several classes and that the Nice Classification is an evolving instrument, with a tenth edition of that classification coming into force on 1 January 2012 and including, under unchanged class headings, new goods and services. This is, in the AG’s view, another example of why Communication No 4/03 of the President of the EUIPO does not guarantee legal certainty.

In summary, the AG considers that the interpretation contained in the above cited Communication 4/03, leads to uncertainty and ultimately to an increase in the total number of trade marks registered and protected in the Union and, accordingly, in the number of conflicts which arise between them, distorting competition.

Trademark owners and practitioners alike await with interest the decision of the Court of Justice in this controversial subject, since it will have very relevant implications not only for future applicants but, most particularly, for the owners of registered trademarks which might see the scope of protection granted to their trademarks shrink before the end of the 5-year period after which any trademark registration is subject to cancellation on the grounds of non use.

For further information or if you have any questions, please contact Laura Alonso on laura.alonso@hoyngrokh.com or on +34 91 522 38 96.

2011-12-06 Press
Ja 367 Rabobank wins trade name dispute 06 December 2011 Tue, 12/06/2011 - 01:00 On 1 December 2011, Rabobank - the largest Dutch bank - won interlocutory proceedings against a company which offers financial services under the name Boerenleen (Farmersloan).

On 1 December 2011, Rabobank - the largest Dutch bank - won interlocutory proceedings against a company which offers financial services under the name Boerenleen (Farmersloan).

The Hague district court ruled that the use of the name Boerenleen is unlawful vis-à-vis Rabobank, which is still widely known under its former trade name Boerenleenbank and still uses that name in its statutory and trade name. According to the court, the name Boerenleen is not descriptive for the services Boerenleen offers and is confusingly similar to Boerenleenbank. Rabobank even proved that such consumer confusion exists by means of a market survey.

The court ordered Boerenleen to cease the use of the name Boerenleen and the use of domain names containing the name Boerenleen or Boerenleenbank for financial services, subject to a penalty. The judgment is particularly interesting because the court awarded Rabobank’s claims on the basis of the doctrine of the after effect (“nawerking”) of a former trade name.

Rabobank was assisted by Joris van Manen and Laura Fresco from Hoyng Monegier.

2011-12-06 Press
Ja 368 DSM succeeds to uphold important patent at the EPO 07 December 2011 Wed, 12/07/2011 - 01:00 On 30 November 2011, DSM succeeded to uphold an important patent in an 11 hr marathon hearing at the EPO.

On 30 November 2011, DSM succeeded to uphold an important patent in an 11 hr marathon hearing at the EPO.

Jeroen den Hartog of Hoyng Monegier argued the case together with in-house counsel assisted by a team of experts of DSM. The patent concerned a more stable oil comprising a highly unsaturated long chain fatty acid, which is used in infant formulas.

Important issues were:

  • the interpretation of terms in the claim,
  • inherent disclosure,
  • enablement of the prior art, and
  • the evidence of effect of the invention.

DSM is an important client, and we are very pleased to have been able to play a role in the IP driven business of this company.

For further details please contact Jeroen den Hartog on +31 20 592 4511 or on denhartogj@hoyngmonegier.com.

2011-12-07 Press
Ja 369 Philips wins in ADR proceedings to recover <avent.Es> 16 December 2011 Fri, 12/16/2011 - 01:00 On 4 December 2011, Philips succeeded in the ADR proceedings filed for the recovery of the domain name <avent.es>, a domain name reproducing one of its most well-known brands AVENT, in the field of baby care products.

On 4 December 2011, Philips succeeded in the ADR proceedings filed for the recovery of the domain name <avent.es>, a domain name reproducing one of its most well-known brands AVENT, in the field of baby care products.

The domain name had been registered by a Spanish company which alleged to be in the field of adventure activities (in Spanish “aventura”) and which had sought registration in Spain of the trademark AVENT MULTIAVENTURA EN LA NATURALEZA (AVENT Multiadventure in Nature) & Device in a class where Philips had no registration for the AVENT sign.

The domain name had been parked for some time and it recently held a website on adventure activities and camping products.

The expert ruled in favour of Philips and concluded that the Respondent had to be aware of the sign AVENT prior to registration of the domain name in light of the submitted evidence on the well-known character of trademark AVENT in Spain and acknowledging that the activation of the domain name for use as a website connected with adventure activities is insufficient to change this conclusion, particularly taking into account the allegations that, apart from a trademark application and a mere website, the Respondent had not submitted any other proof on the existence of a genuine business project linked to the domain name.

With regards to the lack of legitimate rights or interests in the domain name by the Respondent, the expert acknowledged that a trademark application is simply an expectation to obtain rights on the sign and not a consolidated right and concludes that there are “more than reasonable doubts” that the trademark application in the name of the Respondent is finally granted in light of the opposition filed on behalf of the Complainant before the Spanish PTO.


Philips was assisted by Laura Alonso from Hoyng Monegier.

2011-12-16 Press
Ja 371 C5 Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation Conference 31 January -1 February 2012 Amsterdam, the Netherlands Tue, 01/31/2012 - 01:00 Simon Dack will be speaking at the C5 Conference on Pharma and Biotech Patent Litigation which will be held in Amsterdam.

Simon Dack will be speaking at the C5 Conference on Pharma and Biotech Patent Litigation which will be held in Amsterdam. Details of his panel can be found below:

01 Feburary 2012: 11.55-12.55
Developing a Successful Strategy for Pan-European Patent Enforcement Following Recent Case Law Developments on Cross-Border Injunctions

The panel talk will cover:

  • The recent approach of the Dutch court
    - Solvay v Honeywell
    - Yellow Page v Yell
    - Apple v Samsung
  • Implications of recent cross-border injunctions for pharma and biotech products
  • Referral to the ECJ regarding provisional cross-border injunctions
  • Comparing patents with other EU IP rights (CTMs Community designs)

For a copy of the full programme, please click here.

2012-01-06 Events
Ja 372 Litigating Standard-Essential Patents Conference 20 March 2012 Amsterdam Tue, 03/20/2012 - 01:00 Bart van den Broek will be speaking at the Litigating Standard-Essential Patents Conference on 20 March 2012 which will be held in Amsterdam.

Bart van den Broek will be speaking at the Litigating Standard-Essential Patents Conference on 20 March 2012 which will be held in Amsterdam. Details of his talk can be found below:

20 March 2012: 11.00-11.45
Litigating Standard-Essential Patents in the Netherlands covering:

  • Practical Implications fo Dutch-FRAND approach
  • Enforcement tools for essential patent holders

For a copy of the full programme, please click here.

The conference is organised by Forum Institut.

2012-01-10 Events
Ja 375 Dutch Providers Ordered to Block Pirate bay HOYNG MONEGIER has successfully acted for the Dutch Anti-Piracy organisation (BREIN) against two large internet access providers in the Netherlands. Ziggo and XS4ALL have been ordered to block access to The Pirate Bay for its subscribers.


HOYNG MONEGIER has successfully acted for the Dutch Anti-Piracy organisation (BREIN) against two large internet access providers in the Netherlands. Ziggo and XS4ALL have been ordered to block access to The Pirate Bay for its subscribers.

In October 2011, HOYNG MONEGIER successfully assisted the Belgian Anti-Piracy Federation (BAF) to obtain a similar order against the two largest Belgian access providers.

The Pirate Bay is one of the most well-known pirate websites in the world. It allows the unlawful file sharing of creative content such as films, music and television shows. The Pirate Bay is visited by approximately 500,000 unique visitors from the Netherlands per month and is the most popular file sharing website in the Netherlands.

The current decision (see: http://www.rechtspraak.nl/ljn.asp?ljn=BV0549) is the first of its kind in the Netherlands. It obliges Ziggo and XS4ALL to initiate blockades of a list of (sub)domains and IP addresses currently in use by The Pirate Bay. Interestingly, the order also offers BREIN the opportunity to supply additional sub(domains) and IP addresses to the providers to account for future changes at The Pirate Bay. This forward-looking aspect of the order may prove to be very important in this dynamic online environment.

BREIN was assisted by Joris van Manen and Robin van Kleeff from HOYNG MONEGIER.

2012-01-16 Press
Ja 377 The EU Unitary Patent: Will it have all the answers? 19/01/2012 Thu, 01/19/2012 (All day) After almost 40 years of failure, the European institutions seem finally to be edging towards a Unified Patent System.

After almost 40 years of failure, the European institutions seem finally to be edging towards a Unified Patent System.

The existing system of European patents has a number of shortcomings. First, it is an expensive system, notably because of the translation requirements. Second, European patents, once granted, fall apart into a bundle of national rights, which must be enforced nationally: there is no unified jurisdictional system for infringement and validity suits. This makes litigating European patents both expensive and unpredictable. National Courts can come to differing decisions for essentially the same patents. The result is legal uncertainty. The present system also encourages forum shopping.

It has long been felt necessary to provide a serious and credible alternative to the "bundle" system of European patents. Any Unitary Patent System should:

  • be more accessible and affordable;
  • support innovation and growth;
  • provide greater legal certainty;
  • be based on laws and procedures that are easy to use.

Such a system would, it was argued, make Europe more attractive for inventors and tend to support European businesses, in particular SMEs, which are perhaps not optimally served by the present system.

Previous attempts to create a unitary European patent right via a treaty (the Community Patent Convention) and subsequently a community regulation floundered. The current Unitary Patent project is founded on two distinct building blocks:

1/ The creation of a Unitary Patent covering (almost) the whole of the European Union by a Regulation of the Council and of the European Parliament (under the "enhanced cooperation" provisions).

2/ The creation of a Unified Patent Court for litigation of both traditional European patents and the new Unitary Patent.

The Regulation will not apply until the Unified Patent Court has entered into force. The Commission hopes that the first Unitary Patent will be granted by 2013.

The Unitary Patent

The Unitary Patent will be a European patent granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) under the European Patent Convention (EPC), to which unitary effect will be given after grant. This means that the current grant procedure of European patents will not be affected. The only difference will appear at the time that the European patent is effectively granted: either it will be a new Unitary Patent, or it will classed as a bundle of national patents.

In March 2011, the EU’s Competitiveness Council adopted a decision authorising “enhanced cooperation” i.e. the authorisation of at least nine of the Member States to establish advanced cooperation in the area of the Unitary Patent, even though others may not want to be involved.

In June 2011, the Competitiveness Council decided to continue with two draft Regulations, one concerning the creation of the Unitary Patent itself (See footnote 1) and the other concerning the language arrangements (see footnote2).

In May 2011, Italy and Spain challenged the Council’s decision to authorise enhanced cooperation before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It will most likely take months before the CJEU decides on these complaints. Work on the Unitary Patent right continued regardless.

On 1st December 2011, the European Parliament representatives and the Council negotiators reached an agreement on the “Unitary Patent Package”, i.e. on the Unitary Patent, the Unified Court and the language regime. The Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament approved the “Unitary Patent Package” on 20 December 2011. This approval now needs to be confirmed by the whole of the European Parliament and the Council.

In light of the appointment of Italy’s new Prime Minister, Mario Monti, an avid supporter of the Unitary Patent, Italy may eventually drop its complaint and join the Unitary Patent system.

The Unified Patent Court

A first Agreement on the “European and EU Patents Court” with the power of jurisdiction for litigations relating to both, classic European patents and new Unitary Patents was supposed to be reached in December 2009.

However, the CJEU held that this Agreement did not conform with the EU treaties. Interpreting EU law whilst being at the same time outside of the framework of the EU was not acceptable for the CJEU.

On 14 June 2011, the Hungarian Presidency of the EU Council proposed a revised draft Agreement (see footnote 3). This draft excludes non-EU States from the new jurisdictional system and contains a new chapter dedicated to the primacy and the interpretation of Union law.

The main rules established by the revised draft may be summarised as follows:

i. The Unified Patent Court will comprise a Court of First Instance, a Court of Appeal and a Registry. The Court of First Instance will be composed of local and regional divisions, as well as a Central Division.

ii. The panels of the Court of First Instance shall have a multinational composition (at least one foreign judge) to strengthen the European character of the local and regional divisions. The panels of the Central Division will always be composed of two legally qualified judges and one technically qualified judge. The panels of the Court of Appeal shall also be mixed (3 legal + 2 technical judges). The aim of the Unified Patent Court is to reach a high level of efficiency and specialisation: in order to be appointed, judges will have to demonstrate “the highest standards of competence and proven experience in the field of patent litigation”.

iii. The Unified Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over European patent litigations (with or without unitary effect). At the end of the transitional period (7 years), the national courts will lose their jurisdiction over European patents’ cases. The rules of territorial jurisdiction are flexible and leave the door open for forum shopping (division of the defendants’ domicile or division of the place of the infringement). There is also a possibility to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division (bifurcation rule).

iv. The decisions in the matter of Unitary Patents will have pan-European effects.

v. The rules of procedure have not been precisely determined or defined yet. However, it is already known that these rules will be a compromise between Continental laws and Common laws. Measures such as discovery, freezing orders or hearing of witnesses may be granted by the Unified Court.

vi. The rules concerning the language of the proceedings are currently: the official language of the Member State of the relevant division (the court may suggest the use of a different language with the approval of the parties); in the Central Division the language will be the language in which the patent is granted (German, English, or French).

Controversy

Lawyers, national judges, members of industry and academics have voiced a number of procedural and substantive concerns.

First, the unseemly haste with which, in the last months of 2011, new drafts of the text were amended and re-amended, often as the result of discussions which took place behind closed doors, with little or no time for interested parties to comment on the new drafts, has left many observers puzzled and concerned. Why, after nearly 40 years of inaction, was it felt necessary to bulldoze the agreements through in the space of a few short months? After a long in camera hearing at the beginning of December, a final compromise agreement was apparently reached. At the time of writing, however, whilst a positive press release had been released by the Commission, the text of the compromise had still not been made available for public scrutiny.

Secondly, one provision which has survived universal and trenchant criticism from the European judiciary and patent bar is the incorporation of Article 6 to 8 in the draft Regulation. These provisions make substantive patent law part of the European legal order, and mean that patent cases involving a Unitary Patent are susceptible to the preliminary ruling jurisdiction of the CJEU. Based on the generally unsatisfactory experience of the CJEU's handling of preliminary rulings in Community trademark cases, it is generally agreed that the CJEU does not have the necessary skills to deal with patent cases, and that the years of delays and additional costs likely to be caused by the potential to pose questions to the Court is likely to prove to be a very significant disadvantage of the new system.

Thirdly, the enforcement and jurisdictional provisions allow a considerable amount of forum shopping, and will preserve in many cases the bifurcation currently present in the German national enforcement system, where validity and infringement are considered by Germany (and some inside Germany) believe that such a system is undesirable, because it means that there is no guarantee that the patent will be construed in the same way by the two Courts.

Finally, whilst it has emerged that Luxembourg is apparently to be the seat of the new Court of Appeal, there is still no agreement as to the location of the all important Central Division. Five countries (the UK, Germany, France, The Netherlands and Hungary) applied to host the Central Division, and it is likely that a decision on which of these member states is the lucky winner will be delayed until 2012.

Timing

The Unitary Patent Regulation should be adopted by summer 2012, while the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court should be signed in Warsaw on 22 December 2011 (entry into force foreseen on 1 January 2014).

If you have any questions in connection with this update, please do not hesitate to contact us.

For a pdf of this alert, please click here.

***********

Footnote 1 - Proposal for a Regulation of the Council and the European Parliament implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, Brussels, 23 June 2011, Doc. 11328/11.

Footnote 2 - Proposal for a Council Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements, Brussels, 23 June 2011, Doc. 11328/11.

Footnote 3 - Draft agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute, Brussels, 14 June 2011, Doc. 11533/11.

2012-01-19 Publications
Ja 378 Hoyng Monegier nominated for 5 MIP Awards 30 January 2012 Mon, 01/30/2012 - 01:00 Managing Intellectual Property has announced the nominations for its Global Awards 2012. Hoyng Monegier was shortlisted in 5 categories.

Managing Intellectual Property has announced the nominations for its Global Awards 2012.

Hoyng Monegier was shortlisted in the following categories:

  • Belgium Contentious
  • The Netherlands Contentious
  • Spain Contentious
  • Europe Patent
  • Firm to watch (Global)

The winners will be recognised at a ceremony at the Dorchester in London on March 15.

2012-01-30 Press
Ja 379 A Warning Against Imitators - Jose-Antonio Sanmartín 03/02/2012 Fri, 02/03/2012 (All day) Jose-Antonio Sanmartín, Senior Associate at Hoyng Monegier writes an article for the Feburary 2012 edition of Intellectual Property Magazine. His article, titled A warning against imitators is based on the case Pandora Jewelry, A/S, and City Time, SL, v Relojerí Electróníca and Artestone SL.

Jose-Antonio Sanmartín, Senior Associate at Hoyng Monegier writes an article for the Feburary 2012 edition of Intellectual Property Magazine.

His article, titled A warning against imitators is based on the case Pandora Jewelry, A/S, and City Time, SL, v Relojerí Electróníca and Artestone SL.

For a full copy of the article, click here.

2012-02-03 Publications
Ja 380 Multiple victory for The Coca-Cola Company in ADR proceedings concerning domain name Myfanta 06 February 2012 Mon, 02/06/2012 - 01:00 By means of two decisions notified by WIPO on 25 January 2012, The Coca-Company succeeds in UDR proceedings instituted against two Spanish respondents, Myfanta Network, S.L. and Net Service Syst Spain, S.L. for the recovery of the domain names <myfanta.com>, <myfanta.net>, <myfanta.org>, <myfanta.info> and <myfanta.mobi>, a success which follows the one achieved for The Coca-Cola Company at the US National Arbitration Forum three weeks before concerning the recovery of the domain name <myfanta.us>.

By means of two decisions notified by WIPO on 25 January 2012, The Coca-Company succeeds in UDR proceedings instituted against two Spanish respondents, Myfanta Network, S.L. and Net Service Syst Spain, S.L. for the recovery of the domain names <myfanta.com>, <myfanta.net>, <myfanta.org>, <myfanta.info> and <myfanta.mobi>, a success which follows the one achieved for The Coca-Cola Company at the US National Arbitration Forum three weeks before concerning the recovery of the domain name <myfanta.us>.

The domain names were in the name of the two above cited Spanish companies and, in particular, <myfanta.com> had been arguably put to use in relation to an internet not-for-profit social network by the company Myfanta Network, S.L., owning a Spanish trademark application for MYFANTA (composite) to cover those services, which is currently rejected on the grounds of the opposition filed on behalf of The Coca-Cola Company and pending a contentious-administrative appeal before the High Court of Justice of Madrid.

The WIPO and NAF experts ruled in favour of The Coca-Cola Company and concluded that the Respondents registered in bad faith and could not make a bona fide use of the domain names, since they had to be aware of such a well-known mark as FANTA, despite the evidence submitted by Myfanta Network on the website project being developed and their arguments on their legitimate rights for use of the domain name based on their company name.

The Coca-Cola company was assisted by Laura Alonso of HOYNG MONEGIER.

To read the <myfanta.com> decision in full, click here.
To read the <myfanta.net> decision in full, click here.
To read the <myfanta.us> decision in full click here.

2012-02-06 Press
Ja 383 CEFI XI Pharmaceutical Law Course 13-14 March 2012 Madrid Tue, 03/13/2012 (All day) CEFI (Centro de Estudios para el fomento de la investigacion) will be holding its 11th Pharmaceutical Law Course in Madrid on 13 and 14 March 2012.

CEFI (Centro de Estudios para el fomento de la investigacion) will be holding its 11th Pharmaceutical Law Course in Madrid on 13 and 14 March 2012.

Luis Fernández-Novoa of HOYNG MONEGIER LLP will be speaking on 13 March 2012 at 13.40 on the panel titled: Proceedings of the Spanish Medicine Agency where he will cover 'The Sunset Clause'.

 

2012-02-13 Events
Ja 384 C5 International Forum: Freedom to Operate 09-10 May 2012 Frankfurt, Germany Wed, 05/09/2012 - 02:00 C5 will be holding it's 9th International Forum on Freedom to Operate on 09 and 10 May 2012. Jeroen den Hartog will speak about privilege and confidentiality.

C5 will be holding it's 9th International Forum on Freedom to Operate on 09 and 10 May 2012. The event will take place in Frankfurt, Germany.

Jeroen den Hartog of HOYNG MONEGIER will be speaking on 09 May at 16.00hrs. The title of his talk is:

Finding the Right Balance When Reporting Your FTO Strategy: Privilege and Confidentiality.

For further information and a copy of the agenda, please visit the C5 website.

2012-02-17 Events
Ja 385 Patent Validity & Infringement 2012 26 April 2012 London, UK Thu, 04/26/2012 - 02:00 LexisNexis is running this one day conference on 26 April 2012 in London. Simon Dack of HOYNG MONEGIER will be running a session on the Netherlands. As a central geographical point in European business, an effective patent protection, enforcement, and defence strategy in the Netherlands is essential.

LexisNexis is running this one day conference on 26 April 2012 in London.

Simon Dack of HOYNG MONEGIER will be running a session on the Netherlands. As a central geographical point in European business, an effective patent protection, enforcement, and defence strategy in the Netherlands is essential.

Simon will cover the following:

• An update on recent Dutch cross-border injunction cases, including Solvay v Honeywell, Apple v Samsung, Yellow Pages v Yell, and PTC v APE
• The impact of border control, customs seizures and document disclosure in validity and infringement cases
• Injunctive relief in the Netherlands and what other types of relief are available
• What a European Unitary Patent might mean for The Netherlands.

For more information or to register, please visit the LexisNexis website.

2012-02-23 Events
Ja 386 First Belgian decision on (il)legality of provisional enforceability of patent/SPC revocation judgment 01 March 2012 Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:00 HOYNG MONEGIER represents Lundbeck in its appeal against the decision of 3 October 2011 the Brussels Commercial Court, revoking Lundbeck’s Belgian escitalopram SPC. This judgment was declared immediately enforceable, notwithstanding appeal.

HOYNG MONEGIER represents Lundbeck in its appeal against the decision of 3 October 2011 the Brussels Commercial Court, revoking Lundbeck’s Belgian escitalopram SPC. This judgment was declared immediately enforceable, notwithstanding appeal.

In the appeal, by way of preliminary issue, we requested that the ordered immediate enforceability be declared illegal. By judgment of 14 February, the Brussels Court of Appeal upheld Lundbeck’s appeal on this point and found that a first instance decision revoking a patent or SPC cannot legally be declared provisionally enforceable. According to the Court of Appeal, such immediate enforceability is contrary to Article 51§2 of the Belgian Patent Act (BPA), which, in view of Articles 18 and 19 SPC Regulation and in absence of any specific provision relating to SPC’s, is held to be applicable to SPC’s. Deviating from the general rule under Belgian procedural law in this respect, Article 51§2 BPA stipulates that an application before the Supreme Court against a patent revocation decision rendered by an appellate court, has a suspensive effect. Allowing the immediate enforceability of a nullity decision in first instance is irreconcilable with the necessary suspensive effect of a cassation request under Article 51§2 BPA and would render the latter devoid of any meaning. A revoked patent/SPC cannot be declared valid again. The Court added that, given the erga omnes (and ex tunc) effect of a revocation decision, the legal guarantee under the Belgian Code of Civil Procedure providing that the party enforcing a judicial ruling does so at its own risk, cannot offer sufficient protection for the patentee.

This is the first time a Belgian court has ruled on the question of the (il)legality of the provisional enforceability of a nullity decision. The merits of the case will be heard shortly.

Please contact Benoît Strowel or Steven Cattoor for more information or a copy of the judgment.

2012-03-01 Press
Ja 387 Hoyng Monegier wins 2 awards at the Global Managing IP Awards 16 March 2012 Fri, 03/16/2012 - 01:00 Managing IP held their annual awards ceremony on 15 March 2012 at the Dorchester, London where leading IP firms were recognised in more than 40 countries, as well as in pan-european and global categories.

Managing IP held their annual awards ceremony on 15 March 2012 at the Dorchester, London where leading IP firms were recognised in more than 40 countries, as well as in pan-european and global categories.

HOYNG MONEGIER is delighted to have received awards in the following categories:

  • Belgium (contentious)
  • Global Emerging Firm

 

 

2012-03-16 Press
Ja 390 EU-wide victory for Babywelt in Dutch proceedings 08 May 2012 Tue, 05/08/2012 - 02:00 On Wednesday 2 May 2012 the District Court of The Hague awarded Babywelt’s claims in full scale proceedings against Maxi Miliaan, regarding design rights on children’s strollers.

On Wednesday 2 May 2012 the District Court of The Hague awarded Babywelt’s claims in full scale proceedings against Maxi Miliaan, regarding design rights on children’s strollers.

Since several years, Babywelt and Maxi Miliaan are involved in proceedings in Germany, where Maxi Miliaan alleges that Babywelt infringes on its EU registered and unregistered design rights with various types of strollers. In the Dutch proceedings, Babywelt claimed a declaration of non-infringement for the entire EU with regard to four of its stroller designs.

The District Court of The Hague first held that it had cross-border jurisdiction in this case on the basis of the EU Jurisdiction and Enforcement Regulation in combination with the EU Design Regulation. In deviation of the decisions of the German courts in preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court of The Hague then ruled that Babywelt’s strollers differ even more from the designs of Maxi Miliaan, than the designs of Maxi Miliaan differ from the strollers known from the prior art. The court found that Babywelt’s more comfortable, traditional designed strollers made a different overall impression on the informed user than the modern, sleek design of Maxi Miliaan’s strollers.

Interestingly, the court seemed to follow the approach of the Court of Appeal of The Hague in its recent Samsung/Apple judgment, that separate elements known from the prior art can also be taken into account in the assessment of the scope of protection of a EU design right.

The court also ordered Maxi Miliaan to pay the full procedural costs incurred by Babywelt in these proceedings.

Babywelt was represented by Frank Eijsvogels and Laura Fresco from HOYNG MONEGIER.

2012-05-08 Press
Ja 391 Nederlands Hoyng Monegier organiseert “STATE OF THE ART” pleitwedstrijd 04 May 2012 Fri, 05/04/2012 - 02:00 Hoyng Monegier nodigt je uit een kijkje te nemen in de keuken van een internationale, gerenommeerde intellectuele eigendom boetiek: doe mee aan STATE OF THE ART op 15 juni 2012.

Hoyng Monegier nodigt je uit een kijkje te nemen in de keuken van een internationale, gerenommeerde intellectuele eigendom boetiek: doe mee aan STATE OF THE ART op 15 juni 2012.

STATE OF THE ART is een pleitwedstrijd voor studenten in de laatste fase van hun studie of die pas zijn afgestudeerd, met aantoonbare affiniteit voor het intellectueel eigendomsrecht. Voor deelname is geen specifieke voorkennis vereist. Wij zijn op zoek naar studenten met goede studieresultaten en een interessant CV. Het aantal plaatsen voor de pleitwedstrijd is beperkt; bij overschrijding van het aantal beschikbare plaatsen wordt geselecteerd op basis van kwaliteit.

Kijk voor meer informatie op www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/state-of-the-art.

2012-05-04 Press
Ja 394 Hoyng Monegier attends ECTA Conference 20-22 June 2012 Palermo, Italy Wed, 06/20/2012 - 02:00 For the 31st time, The European communities Trademark Association (ECTA) is holding it's annual conference which will take place 20-22 June in Palermo, Italy.

For the 31st time, The European communities Trademark Association (ECTA) is holding it's annual conference which will take place 20-22 June in Palermo, Italy.

The folloing lawyers from HOYNG MONEGIER will be in attendance, Laura Alonso, Marlo van de Braak, Laura Fresco, Carina Gommers, Marie Georges-Picot and Sophie Micallef.

If you are interested in having a meeting with any of our attending lawyers, please feel free to contact them directly.

2012-05-06 Events
Ja 396 Pirate Party and Dutch internet access providers ordered to block The Pirate Bay 18 May 2012 Fri, 05/18/2012 - 02:00 Following the Dutch Anti-Piracy organisation’s (BREIN) success in obtaining the first site blocking order where access providers Ziggo and XS4ALL were ordered to block access to The Pirate Bay (TPB), summary proceedings were initiated against another four major access providers.

Following the Dutch Anti-Piracy organisation’s (BREIN) success in obtaining the first site blocking order where access providers Ziggo and XS4ALL were ordered to block access to The Pirate Bay (TPB), [see article on our website here] summary proceedings were initiated against another four major access providers.

Since that judgment many TPB-specific proxy servers have appeared. By visiting a TPB-specific proxy server, a user visits TPB, but without the need to go to the (blocked) IP-addresses. It is clear that the providers would argue that the requested measures (IP block and domain name block) would not be effective, given the possibility of visiting TPB via a proxy server. Therefore in the first instance, BREIN obtained an ex parte injunction against any TPB-specific proxy server. Subsequently, BREIN summoned a number of other proxy servers and was able to take down 37 proxy servers before the trial against the providers commenced.

However, the Dutch section of the Pirate Party operated a TPB-specific proxy server and refused to take it down. This proxy server has grown in popularity, serving thousands of individual visitors per day. BREIN thus obtained another ex parte injunction, this time against the Pirate Party. Not wanting to forfeit any penalty sums, the Pirate Party took down its TPB-specific proxy server, but subsequently started to link to other proxy servers from the address where it previously hosted its TPB-specific proxy server. It also heavily promoted its other proxy server (which was not TPB-specific, but enabled visits to any website – including TPB). As a consequence, BREIN initiated further summary proceedings against the Pirate Party.
Both judgments were handed down on the same day where BREIN prevailed in both cases.

In the case against the Pirate Party, the judge confirmed the ex parte injunction, but also prohibited the Pirate Party from offering a non-specific proxy server if it did not block the IP addresses and domain names from TPB. The Pirate Party was also banned from publishing lists of Internet addresses which could be used to circumvent blocks of TPB.

In the case against the access providers, the judge explicitly reasoned that it is incorrect to assess the effectiveness of a blocking measure under the assumption that no other measures will be taken. Particularly since BREIN had clearly shown it was acting against proxy servers. The access providers were therefore ordered to block access for their subscribers to TPB.

BREIN was assisted by Joris van Manen and Robin van Kleeff from HOYNG MONEGIER.

 

2012-05-18 Press
Ja 397 Hoyng Monegier obtains an important victory for Procter & Gamble in a misleading advertising litigation. 21 May 2012 Mon, 05/21/2012 - 02:00 Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid Office has obtained an important victory for its client Procter & Gamble (P&G) in the misleading advertising litigation brought against the advertising campaign of TRESemmé hair care products in Spain.

Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid Office has obtained an important victory for its client Procter & Gamble (P&G) in the misleading advertising litigation brought against the advertising campaign of TRESemmé hair care products in Spain.

On 18 May, the Commercial Court No. 1 of Barcelona served its final decision on the proceedings on the merits brought by P&G against ALBERTO CULVER INC (ACI) and its distributor in Spain for misleading advertising of TRESemmé products. It ordered ACI to finally cease using the slogan ‘Used by Professionals’ in the advertising and promotion of its hair care products, and discharged the Spanish distributor for its lack of liability in the design of the advertising campaign.

This is a successful ending to the litigation which started almost 4 years ago when the TRESemmé products were launched in Spain and P&G filed a complaint against the distributor of the products for their misleading advertising before the Advertising Jury of the Advertising Self Regulatory Organisation Autocontrol. Although the Spanish Jury ruled in favour of P&G both, in the first instance and on appeal, ACI continued with the campaign, thus obliging P&G to bring the case before the Spanish Courts, in November 2008.

The main complaint was accompanied by a request for an ex parte preliminary injunction to cease the advertising based on the prior favourable decisions and the lack of any evidence whatsoever supporting the truthfulness of the advertising claims. The Court granted the requested urgent injunction, ordering ACI to cease any use of the misleading advertising, but it later withdrew this decision and lifted the injunction granted. P&G successfully appealed this decision and the Court of Appeals of Barcelona revoked it in July 2010, ordering ACI to cease using any type of advertising claim of the TRESemmé hair care products containing the terms ‘Usado por profesionales’ or ‘Used by Professionals’, until a final decision was issued on the merits of the case by the Commercial Court.

The final decision on the merits issued now by the Commercial Court has followed the P&G approach confirmed by the Court of Appeals in the preliminary injunction litigation, providing an interpretation of the meaning of the claim ‘Used by Professionals’ from the perspective of the consumers and in line with the Unfair Practices Directive 2005/29/EC.

According to the Barcelona Courts, such claim conveys the message that the use of the product by hair care professionals is ordinary, real and effective and in any event prior to the launch of the campaign, so that can only be considered true if, even though it is not used in a generalized and significant way by hairdressers and stylists, some of them used the products, but excluding any symbolic or occasional use. Furthermore, the Court considers that the untruthful claim is indeed likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer.

Procter and Gamble was assisted by Luis Fernández-Novoa and Álvaro Velázquez.

 

2012-05-21 Press
Ja 398 IE-Forum – Football Dataco, maar dan anders (Football Dataco, but differently) by Laura Fresco 18/05/2012 Fri, 05/18/2012 (All day) Laura Fresco, senior associate at HOYNG MONEGIER (Amsterdam office) has published a contribution on the Dutch IP actualities website www.ie-forum.nl concerning the recent Football Dataco decision (High Court of Justicy Chancery Division 8 May 2012, [2012] EWHC 1185 (Ch) (Football Dataco Ltd v Sportradar e.a. and Football Dataco Ltd v Stan James Abington Ltd).

Laura Fresco, senior associate at HOYNG MONEGIER (Amsterdam office) has published a contribution on the Dutch IP actualities website www.ie-forum.nl concerning the recent Football Dataco decision (High Court of Justicy Chancery Division 8 May 2012, [2012] EWHC 1185 (Ch) (Football Dataco Ltd v Sportradar e.a. and Football Dataco Ltd v Stan James Abington Ltd).
In her article titled ‘Football Dataco, maar dan anders (Football Dataco, but differently)’, she highlights, amongst others, the differences with the earlier ECJ Football Dataco judgment of 1 March 2012 (Case C-604/10).
Click here for a full copy of the article in Dutch.

2012-05-18 Publications
Ja 399 Hoyng Monegier obtains important victory for Imperial Tobacco in unfair competition litigation. 24 May 2012 Thu, 05/24/2012 - 02:00 Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid Office has obtained an important victory, for its client IMPERIAL TOBACCO (IT) in an unfair competition litigation brought against the packaging of a hand rolling tobacco imitating the getup of its famous brand GOLDEN VIRGINIA in Spain.

Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid Office has obtained another important victory, for its client IMPERIAL TOBACCO (IT) in an unfair competition litigation brought against the packaging of a hand rolling tobacco imitating the getup of its famous brand GOLDEN VIRGINIA in Spain.

On 23 May, Commercial Court No. 1 of Las Palmas de Gran Canarias, served its final decision on the proceedings brought by IT and its subsidiary in the Canaries JOHN PLAYER S.A. against the local company ASHIRWADIS VICTORIA, S.L., for the lookalike misleading presentation of the hand rolling tobacco GV-GARDEN VICTORIA.

The Court declared that by using elements, specific to the presentation of GOLDEN VIRGINIA, the defendant created a similar whole impression which is appropriate to produce in the average consumer, bearing in mind the specific circumstances of market in the Canaries, where the complained product is commercialised, a risk of association with IT’s GOLDEN VIRGINIA brand packs, breaching article 6 of the Spanish Unfair Competition Act (Misleading Acts).

Additionally, the Court further declared that the defendant also breached art. 12 of the same Act, unfairly taking advantage of IT’s GOLDEN VIRGINIA’s repute and goodwill, by using a similar pack which may attract the average consumer interested in a cheaper product but still similar to the prestigious, without any due cause or justification and being easily avoidable with minimum precautions, even if it was considered that it did not misled consumers.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the defendant to cease and refrain from using the relevant GARDEN VICTORIA packs, their seizure, withdrawal and destruction, and bear the costs of the publication of the Judgement in the major newspapers in the Canaries.

The same Commercial Court of Las Palmas had previously (April 2011) dismissed IT’s application for preliminary injunction based on an alleged lack of danger in the delay, in a decision which was appealed before the Court of Appeals in Las Palmas and is still pending. Such finding, even though not totally due to the feeble reasoning for the rejection of the monetary damages based on the different size of both parties, has now been overturned by the Court, which, granting the publication of the Judgement explicitly considers that there are indeed not pecuniary but moral damages which have been inevitably caused ex re ipsa, which grant the harmed party the right to let the public know about the infringing activities.


Imperial Tobacco was represented by Luis Fernández Novoa and Álvaro Velázquez.

2012-05-24 Press
Ja 400 Hoyng Monegier's Paris office obtains important victory in patent dispute 29 June 2012 Fri, 06/29/2012 - 02:00 Hoyng Monegier's Paris office obtained an important victory in a patent infringement case for Soilmec SpA and Soilmec France international.

Hoyng Monegier's Paris office obtained an important victory in a patent infringement case for Soilmec SpA and Soilmec France international, leaders in the design, distribution and manufacture of drilling and foundation equipment. In a judgement handed down on 26 June, the Paris District Court followed Hoyng Monegier's reasoning and invalidated the patent in question. This is a landmark decision as the court went against a prior decision by the EPO’s Board of Appeal rejecting Soilmec's opposition to the same patent.

Soilmec SpA and Soilmec France were represented by Denis Monégier du Sorbier

2012-06-29 Press
Ja 401 Court in The Hague rules in favour of TenCate in trademark litigation with Fieldturf 13 July 2012 Fri, 07/13/2012 - 02:00 Hoyng Monegier obtains important victory for its client, TenCate, in a trademark dispute.

TenCate requested a pan-European injunction against Fieldturf, a company that markets artificial turf under the name REVOLUTION, claiming that Fieldturf's product infringed its EVOLUTION trademark. The parties had had a long-standing commercial relationship, whereby Fieldturf had the exclusive right to use TenCate’s EVOLUTION trademark. This agreement came to an end in 2009, as Fieldturf was developing its own artificial turf. Shortly afterwards, Fieldturf launched its own brand of turf under the name REVOLUTION.

The court in The Hague followed TenCate’s arguments and ordered Fieldturf to stop using the name REVOLUTION in all member states of the European Union.

Royal TenCate (TenCate), a multinational company that combines textile technology with chemical processes in the development and production of functional materials, was represented in this matter by Joris van Manen and Laura Fresco.

Click here to read press articles covering the matter.

2012-07-13 Press
Ja 402 Intellectual Property Law Summer School 2012 15 August 2012 Cambridge Wed, 08/15/2012 - 02:00

On 15 August 2012, Frank Eijsvogels will be speaking at the 12th Annual Intellectual Property Law Summer School 2012, that is held on 13-17 August 2012 at Downing College, Cambridge, UK.
The lecture “Using the customs regulations in anti-counterfeiting” will include the following topics:
- Making customs procedures work for your products
- EU transhipment case law
- Nokia v HMRC and Philips v Lucheng
- Regulation 1383/2003 as part of a litigation strategy
- Creating and implementing a practical anti-counterfeiting strategy
The conference is organised by IBC Legal Conferences.

2012-07-17 Events
Ja 403 Intellectual Property Summer School 15 August 2012 Cambridge, UK Wed, 08/15/2012 - 02:00 On 15 August 2012, Frank Eijsvogels will be speaking at the 12th Annual Intellectual Property Law Summer School 2012, that is held on 13-17 August 2012 at Downing College, Cambridge, UK.

On 15 August 2012, Frank Eijsvogels will be speaking at the 12th Annual Intellectual Property Law Summer School 2012, that is held on 13-17 August 2012 at Downing College, Cambridge, UK.
The lecture “Using the customs regulations in anti-counterfeiting” will include the following topics:
- Making customs procedures work for your products
- EU transhipment case law
- Nokia v HMRC and Philips v Lucheng
- Regulation 1383/2003 as part of a litigation strategy
- Creating and implementing a practical anti-counterfeiting strategy
The conference is organised by IBC Legal Conferences, click here for more information.

2012-07-17 Events
Ja 404 Victory for Pink Ribbon Foundation before EUIPO Second Board of Appeal 17 July 2012 Tue, 07/17/2012 (All day) On 15 June 2012 the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (Trade Marks and Designs) (“EUIPO”) rendered a decision in favour of Stichting Pink Ribbon, in a trade mark dispute with Pink Ribbon, Inc.

On 15 June 2012 the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (Trade Marks and Designs) (“EUIPO”) rendered a decision in favour of Stichting Pink Ribbon, in a trade mark dispute with Pink Ribbon, Inc.
Stichting Pink Ribbon, the well-known Dutch organisation involved in the battle against breast cancer, holds various ‘PINK RIBBON’ trade marks. These were invoked against the trade mark application ‘RIBBON OF PINK’ applied for by Pink Ribbon, Inc.
After Stichting Pink Ribbon won the opposition proceedings before the Opposition Division, Pink Ribbon, Inc. filed an appeal before the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO.
The Board of Appeal now confirms that the trade marks of Stichting Pink Ribbon are valid, in line with the earlier judgment of the District Court of The Hague about this. Concerning the likelihood of confusion the Board of Appeal decides that the goods and services of the trade marks in question are either identical or similar and it considers the signs ‘RIBBON OF PINK’ and ‘PINK RIBBON’ to be highly similar. The Board of Appeal considers that the PINK RIBBON trade mark of Stichting Pink Ribbon has distinctive character and comes to the conclusion that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade mark application applied for and the earlier PINK RIBBON Benelux trade mark registration of Stichting Pink Ribbon. The appeal of Pink Ribbon, Inc. is therefore dismissed.


Stichting Pink Ribbon was represented by Marlou van de Braak of HOYNG MONEGIER LLP.

2012-07-17 Press
Ja 405 Hoyng Monegier obtains two ex parte injunctions for Pirate Bay reverse proxies 18 July 2012 Wed, 07/18/2012 - 02:00 Stichting BREIN recently obtained two victories against parties who provided, by means of so-called ‘reverse proxies’, access to the torrent website The Pirate Bay.

Stichting BREIN (representing the Hollywood studios and the music, games and e-books industry) recently obtained two victories against parties who provided, by means of so-called ‘reverse proxies’, access to the torrent website The Pirate Bay. The District Court of The Hague granted requests for ex parte injunctions against hosting provider Greenhost and an individual website owner.
On 6 July 2012, the District Court of The Hague ordered hosting provider Greenhost to cease and desist the offering of a proxy website providing a circumvention to access The Pirate Bay.
Similar injunctions were obtained against other The Pirate Bay proxies.


Stichting BREIN was represented by Joris van Manen, Robin van Kleeff and Jos Klaus of the Amsterdam office.

2012-07-18 Press
Ja 407 Hoyng Monegier obtains important ruling from the European Court of Justice 20 July 2012 Fri, 07/20/2012 - 02:00 On July 12, 2012, the European Court of Justice handed down its preliminary ruling on the questions referred to it by the District Court of The Hague in Case C 616/10 (Solvay SA v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV, Honeywell Belgium NV and Honeywell Europe NV). The ruling is an important development on matters of jurisdiction in the realm of cross-border injunctions.

On July 12, 2012, the European Court of Justice handed down its preliminary ruling on the questions referred to it by the District Court of The Hague in Case C 616/10 (Solvay SA v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV, Honeywell Belgium NV and Honeywell Europe NV). The ruling is an important development on matters of jurisdiction in the realm of cross-border injunctions.
Solvay, the proprietor of the subject European patent, initiated infringement proceedings against a number of Honeywell companies before the District Court of The Hague. Each of the defendants was accused of infringement in several EU countries.
In the course of the proceedings, Solvay lodged an incidental claim against the Honeywell companies seeking provisional relief in the form of a cross-border injunction to prohibit infringement of the respective foreign parts of Solvay’s European patent until a decision had been reached in the main proceedings.

The Honeywell companies raised the defence of patent invalidity against the incidental claim. However, despite raising this defence, the Honeywell companies neither started nor indicated any intention of starting nullity proceedings against the foreign parts of the patent.
In view of these circumstances the District Court of The Hague concluded that it was necessary to stay the proceedings and to refer a number of questions to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

In answer to the questions presented by the District Court of The Hague , the European Court of Justice stated that:
Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation where two or more companies established in different Member States, in proceedings pending before a court of one of those Member States, are each separately accused of committing an infringement of the same national part of a European patent which is in force in yet another Member State by virtue of their performance of reserved actions with regard to the same product, is capable of leading to ‘irreconcilable judgments’ resulting from separate proceedings as referred to in that provision. It is for the referring court to assess whether such a risk exists, taking into account all the relevant information in the file.
Article 22(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the application of Article 31 of that regulation.”

The recent victory of TenCate before the District Court of The Hague [see press release] in TenCate v Fieldturf provides an example of an earlier judgment which was already in line with this landmark decision of the European Court of Justice. It is further noteworthy that by way of an interim judgment of the District Court of The Hague in G-Star v H&M, the parties were given an opportunity to comment on what consequences the Solvay/Honeywell ruling would have for that case.

Solvay was represented by Frank Eijsvogels and Willem Hoyng.
Both TenCate and G-Star were represented by Joris van Manen and Laura Fresco.

2012-07-20 Press
Ja 408 Russian federation wins back famous vodka brands "Stolichnaya" and "Moskovskaya" 26 July 2012 Thu, 07/26/2012 - 02:00 In a landmark decision made public on 25 July, the Court of Appeals at The Hague ruled that the rights to the world famous vodka brands “Stolichnaya” and “Moskovskaya” belong to the Russian Federation.

In a landmark decision made public on 25 July, the Court of Appeals at The Hague ruled that the rights to the world famous vodka brands “Stolichnaya” and “Moskovskaya” belong to the Russian Federation.

The legal battle between the Russian Federation and Spirits, the Dutch company owned by Russian oligarch Yuri Shefler, has been on-going for some 10 years. Mr. Shefler is accused of having illegally obtained the rights in the leading vodka brands “Stolichnaya” and “Moskovskaya” in the turbulent years following the demise of the USSR. In its judgement, the Court of Appeals has now confirmed that Shefler did not operate in good faith in obtaining these valuable vodka trademarks. According to the Court of Appeals, Spirits is not the rightful owner of the “Stolichnaya” and “Moskovskaya” trademarks. The rights to these world-leading vodka brands belong to the Russian Federation.

Spirits has been licensing the sale of “Stolichnaya” and “Moskovskaya” vodka worldwide since the mid 1990’s. Spirits argued that it had rightfully acquired the trademarks from the Russian State company which originally owned the trademark registrations after the company had been "privatised". The Court ruled that no valid privatisation of the State company had taken place and that the marks thus remained with the Russian State.

According to the Court, Spirits and its director, Yuri Shefler, knew or should have known about this. In addition, the documents available on the alleged "privatisation" should have cast doubts on its validity. Furthermore, the alleged privatisation took place in the "chaotic" period when the USSR fell apart and many State assets were illegally sold off. Moreover, according to the Court, the purchase price for the worldwide portfolio of trademarks was much lower than the actual value of the trademarks. Mr. Shefler and Spirits therefore acted in bad faith when acquiring the trademarks. As the trademarks have remained with the Russian Federation, it is entitled to prohibit the sale of “Stolichnaya” and ”Moskovskaya” vodka by Spirits.

Finally, the Court ruled that Spirits is not allowed to use the words "Russian Vodka" or "Made in Russia" on its bottles. According to the Court, such designations are misleading as the product is not produced by Spirits in Russia.

The decision of the The Hague appeals court can not be challenged on the merits. Spirits may appeal to the Supreme Court, which only has limited possibilities to review the case. The decision has worldwide effect as important issues of Russian law have been resolved by the court. Also, the Court ultimately held that Dutch law is applicable to the purchase of the trademarks by Spirits.


The matter was handled on behalf of the Russian State by Joris van Manen and Laura Fresco.

2012-07-26 Press
Ja 409 Victory for Lundbeck: Lundbeck v. Sandoz 16 August 2012 Thu, 08/16/2012 - 02:00 Lundbeck recently obtained a victory against Sandoz in the Netherlands.

Lundbeck recently obtained a victory against Sandoz in the Netherlands. In a decision dated 14 August 2012, the Judge in Interlocutory Proceedings of the District Court in The Hague ordered a preliminary injunction based on Lundbeck’s patent, forbidding Sandoz to come on the market with products containing infringing escitalopram (a popular anti-depressant).
The Judge followed Lundbeck’s reasoning that an earlier decision of the Dutch Court of Appeal, stating (in brief) that a substance may only be patented if the substance itself is inventive, is likely to be erroneous. The Judge awarded the injunction based on a process claim in the patent. Sandoz, according to the Judge, did not successfully argue that it did not implement the patented process.

Lundbeck was represented by Willem Hoyng, Jeroen den Hartog and Geert Theuws of the Amsterdam office.

Click here for a full copy of the decision in Dutch

2012-08-16 Press
Ja 410 Famous watch & jewellery brands obtain victory against hosting provider 22 August 2012 Wed, 08/22/2012 - 02:00 On 21 August 2012, famous watch and jewellery brands including Breitling, Bulgari, Chanel, Chopard, Christian Dior, Gucci, Longines, Omega, Pandora, Patek Philippe and TAG Heuer, obtained a victory in summary proceedings against internet service provider AltusHost.

On 21 August 2012, famous watch and jewellery brands including Breitling, Bulgari, Chanel, Chopard, Christian Dior, Gucci, Longines, Omega, Pandora, Patek Philippe and TAG Heuer, obtained a victory in summary proceedings against internet service provider AltusHost.

The Belize based ISP hosts many websites offering counterfeit watches and jewellery of the aforementioned trade mark owners. The District Court of The Hague ordered AltusHost to block access to third parties (from the Benelux) to 25 counterfeit websites and to cease and desist hosting of these sites.

The court reasoned that the trade mark infringements on the websites were obvious and that Breitling c.s. had taken sufficient steps before summoning Altushost. The court considered other possibilities to take the counterfeit websites offline not to be realistic. Further, it was decided that the measures asked for by Breitling c.s. were proportionate.

The luxury brands were represented by Joris van Manen, Robin van Kleeff and Jos Klaus of the Amsterdam Office of Hoyng Monegier.

Click here for a copy of the judgment (in Dutch).

2012-08-22 Press
Ja 411 Hoyng Monegier obtains important victory in famous Primus v. Roche patent case 27 August 2012 Mon, 08/27/2012 - 02:00 After a fierce 15 year battle the Court of Appeal of The Hague ruled in the famous Primus v. Roche case that Roche infringed Primus c.s. European Patent.

After a fierce 15 year battle the Court of Appeal of The Hague ruled in the famous Primus v. Roche case that Roche infringed Primus c.s. European Patent.

Primus c.s. was represented by Willem Hoyng of the Amsterdam Office.

Click here for a copy of the judgment in Dutch.

2012-08-27 Press
Ja 412 Marques 20 September 2012 Athens Thu, 09/20/2012 - 02:00 On 20 September 2012, Marlou van de Braak will be a moderator of the workshop "Treasure or Nuisance? The real-life challenges of well-known brands" in Athens, Greece.

On 20 September 2012, Marlou van de Braak will be a moderator of the workshop "Treasure or Nuisance? The real-life challenges of well-known brands" in Athens, Greece.

More information is to be found here.

2012-08-27 Events
Ja 413 Euroforum 7th trade mark and design right day 9 October 2012 Nieuwegein, the Netherlands Tue, 10/09/2012 (All day) On 9 October 2012, Willem Hoyng will be the chairman of the Euroforum 7th Trade Mark and Design Right Day in Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.

On 9 October 2012, Willem Hoyng will be the chairman of the Euroforum 7th Trade Mark and Design Right Day in Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. Laura Fresco will speak about "Prior art and technical functionality in design rights"

 

2012-08-27 Events
Ja 414 Course “Effective Prosecution and Litigation” Stichting Beroepsopleiding Octrooigemachtigden 11 October 2012 Utrecht, the Netherlands Thu, 10/11/2012 - 02:00 On 11 October 2012, Jeroen den Hartog, Willem Hoyng and David Owen will be giving a course on “Effective prosecution and litigation” for the Stichting Beroepsopleiding Octrooigemachtigden.

On 11 October 2012, Jeroen den Hartog, Willem Hoyng and David Owen will be giving a course on “Effective prosecution and litigation” for the Stichting Beroepsopleiding Octrooigemachtigden (“Foundation for Vocational Training of Patent Attorneys”) in Utrecht, The Netherlands.

 

2012-08-27 Events
Ja 415 CIPA Congress 12 October 2012 London Fri, 10/12/2012 - 02:00 On 12 October 2012, Willem Hoyng will be speaking on “The future of patents and patent litigation” at the ‘CIPA Congress’ of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys in London, The United Kingdom.

On 12 October 2012, Willem Hoyng will be speaking on “The future of patents and patent litigation” at the ‘CIPA Congress’ of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys in London, The United Kingdom.

More information is to be found here (‘Programme’)

2012-08-27 Events
Ja 416 Benelux trade mark day 2 November 2012 Houten, the Netherlands Fri, 11/02/2012 - 01:00 On 2 November, Marlou van de Braak will be speaking on “Social Media” at the Benelux Trade Mark Day in Houten, The Netherlands.

On 2 November, Marlou van de Braak will be speaking on “Social Media” at the Benelux Trade Mark Day in Houten, The Netherlands.

More information is to be found here.

2012-08-27 Events
Ja 417 Union round table on design protection 9 November 2012 Amsterdam, De Industriële Groote Club Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:00 On 9 November 2012, Willem Hoyng will be the chairman at the UNION Round Table on design protection in the European Union.

On 9 November 2012, Willem Hoyng will be the chairman at the UNION Round Table on design protection in the European Union. The Venue will be De Industriële Groote Club, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

More information is to be found here.

2012-08-27 Events
Ja 418 IP Summit "Patents" 6 December 2012 Radisson Blu Hotel Royal Hotel, Brussels, Belgium Thu, 12/06/2012 (All day) On 6 December 2012, Willem Hoyng will be acting as a panel member on the UPC Rules of Procedure at the IP Summit “patents” in Brussels.

On 6 December 2012, Willem Hoyng will be acting as a panel member on the UPC Rules of Procedure at the IP Summit “patents” in Brussels.

Denis Monégier du Sorbier will chair a session on "Trade secrets: EU project legislation v. US legacy".

On 7 December, Simon Dack will chair a session on "Stem cells: Where do we stand now" and Benoît Strowel will chair "Litigation Strategies in the Pharma & Biotech Industries".

More information is to be found here.

2012-08-27 Events
Ja 419 Contracting and litigating in IP matters 17 December 2012 Amsterdam Mon, 12/17/2012 - 01:00 On 17 December 2012, Marlou van de Braak will be speaking on "Contracting in IP matters" at the Lexlumen course on "Contracting and litigating in IP matters" in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

On 17 December 2012, Marlou van de Braak will be speaking on "Contracting in IP matters" at the Lexlumen course on "Contracting and litigating in IP matters" in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

 

2012-08-27 Events
Ja 426 Recent developments in IP law 30 November 2012 The Strip (High Tech Campus), Eindhoven, The Netherlands Fri, 11/30/2012 (All day) On Friday 30 November, Willem Hoyng will be speaking on recent developments in intellectual property law at the DeLex IE-Lunch van ‘t Zuiden. http://www.ie-agenda.nl/index.php?//IE-Lunch+van%26%23039%3Bt+Zuiden////31374/

More information is to be found here: [link: http://www.ie-agenda.nl/index.php?//IE-Lunch+van%26%23039%3Bt+Zuiden////31374/]

2012-10-17 Events
Ja 427 IP Roadmap Masterclass 4 December 2012 Utrecht, The Netherlands Tue, 12/04/2012 (All day) Willem Hoyng will be a speaker at the IP Roadmap Masterclass in Utrecht.

On 4 December 2012, Willem Hoyng will be a speaker at the IP Roadmap Masterclass in Utrecht.

2012-10-17 Events
Ja 428 Recent developments in patent law 13 December 2012 Holiday Inn, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Thu, 12/13/2012 (All day) Simon Dack and Bart van den Broek will be speaking on recent developments in patent law and related aspects of procedural law at the DeLex Jurisprudentielunch Octrooirecht December 2012. http://delex.nl/octrooirechtlunch_dec2012.html

On 13 December, Simon Dack and Bart van den Broek will be speaking on recent developments in patent law and related aspects of procedural law at the DeLex Jurisprudentielunch Octrooirecht December 2012. The venue for this event will be the Holiday Inn hotel, next to Amsterdam RAI station (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). More information is to be found here.

2012-10-17 Events
Ja 429 Standards, FRAND, NPEs and Injunctions 6 and 7 November 2012 University College of London, London, UK Tue, 11/06/2012 (All day) Bart van den Broek will be speaking at the UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL) on 6 and 7 November 2012.

Bart van den Broek will be speaking at the UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL) during its conference on "Standards, FRAND, NPE's and Injunctions" on 6 and 7 November 2012.

2012-10-17 Events
Ja 430 Patent litigation and procedures 19 - 20 November 2012 Krakow, Poland Mon, 11/19/2012 (All day) Frank Eijsvogels will be speaking at the "IP training for national judges" seminar series in Krakow.

On 19 and 20 November Frank Eijsvogels will be speaking at the "IP training for national judges" seminar series. He will cover "The importance of intellectual property, in particular patents, to innovation and economic growth in Europe".

2012-10-17 Events
Ja 431 ERA annual conference on trade marks and designs 15 - 16 November 2012 EUIPO, Alicante, Spain Thu, 11/15/2012 (All day) Carl De Meyer is invited to speak at ERA's annual conference on trade marks and designs.

Carl will be speaking about "Goods in transit:  how to prove infringement of trade mark rights after ECJ decisions in Philips and Nokia". The conference will be held at the EUIPO in Alicante on 15 and 16 November 2012.

2012-10-17 Events
Ja 432 Hoyng Monegier: Knowledge Partner of Premier Cercle: upcoming IP summit 6 - 7 December 2012 - and 10 - 11 December 2012 Brussels and Alicante Thu, 12/06/2012 (All day) Hoyng Monegier is honoured to be Premier Cercle's Knowledge Partner during its upcoming IP summit. The IP summit will be split into two events. On 6 and 7 December the "Patents Reloaded" conference will be held in Brussels.On 10 and 11 December the "Regenerating Trademarks" event will be organised in Alicante.

On 6 and 7 December 2012,Premier Cercle will organise its "Patents reloaded" conference in Brussels.

On Thursday 6 December, Willem Hoyng will be chairing the session "Rules of procedure on the Unified Patent Court" and Denis Monégier du Sorbier will chair the session "Trade secrets: EU project legislation v. US legacy".

On Friday 7 December,  Simon Dack will be chairing a session on stem cells " Stem cells: where do we stand now".

The "Patents Reloaded" conference will be organised at the Radisson Blu Royal in Brussels. Click here if you wish to register or  have more information about the "Patents Reloaded" conference.

 

On Monday 10 December, Joris van Manen will be chairing the session "Wiping out fakes on the Web: Treating the side effects of e-commerce". Marlou van de Braak will be leading the session  "Cutting of disputes through mediation".

On Tuesday 11 December, Laura Alonso will  be chairing the session "Clear rules for comparative & keyword advertising" and Marie Georges-Picot will chair "Creating value through licensing and franchising". The conference will be held at the Auditorio de la Diputacion of Alicante.

For more information about Premier Cercle's "Regenerating Trademarks", click here.

 

2012-10-17 Events
Ja 433 Hoyng Monegier's Paris office is moving 31 October 2012 Tue, 10/30/2012 - 01:00 On 1 November 2012, Hoyng Monegier's Paris office will be moving into new offices.

Hoyng Monegier's new offices in Paris will be located at 14 rue Cambacérès, 75008 Paris. The telephone and fax numbers will remain the same.

2012-10-17 Press
Ja 434 C5's 5th Forum: Biotech & Pharma Patent Litigation 29 - 30 January 2013 Radisson Blu Hotel, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tue, 01/29/2013 (All day) Simon Dack will be speaking at C5's 5th Forum: Biotech and Pharma Patent Litigation on 30 January 2013. http://www.c5-online.com/PatentLitigation

Simon Dack will be speaking at C5's 5th Forum: Biotech and Pharma Patent Litigation on 30 January 2013. He will cover the following subject matter : "Understanding the implications of the Solvay case on cross-border injunctions".

For more information or to register for the conference, click here.

2012-10-17 Events
Ja 435 Denis Monégier du Sorbier to participate in conference celebrating the 30th anniversary of l'Institut de Recherche en Propriété Intellectuelle (IRPI) 28 November 2012 Paris, France Wed, 11/28/2012 (All day) Denis Monégier du Sorbier will participate in a roundtable during a conference organised by IRPI (Institut de Recherche en Propriété Intellectuelle).

Denis Monégier du Sorbier will participate in a roundtable during a conference organised by IRPI (Institut de Recherche en Propriété Intellectuelle). The roundtable will cover the following topic: les droits de la propriété intellectuelle face à la mondialisation.

For more information or to register; click here.

2012-10-17 Events
Ja 436 Hoyng Monegier’s Brussels office obtains important victory in patent case. 01 October 2012 Mon, 10/01/2012 - 02:00 Hoyng Monegier represented Lundbeck in its litigation against the premature launch of generic escitalopram products (anti-depressant blockbuster Sipralexa®).

Like our colleagues in the Amsterdam office, our team in Brussels was requested to step in and handle the appeal against a negative 1st instance judgment.

By judgment of 3 October 2011, the Brussels Commercial Court had annulled Lundbeck’s escitalopram SPC, and declared its judgment immediately enforceable. Through a decision obtained from the Brussels Appeal Court early 2012, the immediate enforceability was lifted (because illegal) and Lundbeck could continue invoking its SPC to obtain seizure measures and preliminary relief against premature generic launch pending the appeal on the merits.  Notwithstanding the revocation of the SPC in 1st instance, Hoyng Monegier’s Brussels team was able to carry out 4 descriptive and actual seizures (which were upheld despite motions to set them aside), and, end June 2012, obtained PI relief. Next to these patent/SPC proceedings, our strategy was complemented with various successful initiatives at the regulatory front.

A final judgment on the merits in the patent/SPC case was rendered on 17 September 2012, less than a year after the 1st instance judgment. The Appeal Court upheld our arguments: Lundbeck’s patent and SPC are held entirely valid and every generic containing the active substance escitalopram is considered infringing. An accelerated main action (cease-and-desist) for patent infringement and unfair competition is still on-going. Next to patent/SPC infringement actions, various regulatory procedures have also been initiated, some of which are still pending.

In sum, we were able to block generic entry very quickly, and obtained a total reversal of the 1st instance judgment within the year. As the product in question represents more than 60% of its turnover, this is an important victory for our client, Lundbeck.


The Brussels team consisted of Benoît Strowel, Liesbeth Weynants, Carl De Meyer, Steven Cattoor, Carina Gommers, Charlotte Weyne and Frédéric Lejeune.

2012-10-18 Press
Ja 440 Hoyng Monegier obtains groundbreaking decision from the Spanish Supreme Court. 17 October 2012 Tue, 10/16/2012 - 02:00 On 17 October 2012, the Spanish Supreme Court upheld an appeal lodged by Hoyng Monegier on behalf of the Swedish Company ENVAC CENTRALSUG AKTIEBOLAG and overturned a decision rendered by the Barcelona Court of Appeal in favour of ROS ROCA SA.

This case involved a very important point of Spanish patent law, which had previously been subject to conflicting decisions and which the Spanish Supreme Court has now finally settled, namely the effective date of European patents in Spain.
In the first instance decision rendered by a Spanish commercial court, ENVAC's claim for infringement by ROS ROCA of its waste management process patent was granted, and the latter's counterclaim seeking to invalidate the patent was dismissed. The court stated that the date from which damages (based on the hypothetical royalties due, which resulted in one of the largest damages awards ever granted in a patent case in Spain) should be calculated is the filing date of the Spanish translation of the European patent with the Spanish Patent Office, in accordance with the provisions of the Spanish Royal Decree implementing Article 65 of the European Patent Convention (filing of a translation within 3 months from publication of the grant in the European Patent Bulletin).


The Barcelona Court of Appeal upheld the commercial court's decision, but granted in part ROS ROCA's appeal, stating that the effective date of a European patent is rather the date on which the Spanish Patent Office publishes the translation into Spanish of the application (which in this case occurred 4 months later). This delay was very important since, the meantime, the defendant had been granted many contracts by several Spanish municipalities to design and build waste management projects using the patented process, which the defendant could subsequently exclude from its calculation of the royalties due ENVAC.


The Barcelona Court of Appeal's decision was subsequently cited many times by lower courts and other appellate courts to determine the effective date of European patents in Spain.


Hoyng Monegier appealed to the Spanish Supreme Court, claiming a violation of Article 64 of the European Patent Convention and the provisions of the Spanish Civil Code on the effects of international treaties and clearly spelling out the various implications of the wrongful interpretation of the provisions of the EPC and its implementing Spanish royal decree.


The efforts of Hoyng Monegier have finally paid off, as evidenced by Supreme Court's landmark decision granting our appeal, overturning the decision of the Barcelona Court of Appeal, and stating very clearly that Spanish law cannot derogate from the provisions of the EPC, which establish the date of effectiveness of a European patent as the publication date of the mention of grant in the European Patent Bulletin, and that the optional provisions of Article 65 only entitle the Contracting States to set up a negative condictio juris without suspensive effect.  

Luis Fernández-Novoa and Álvaro Velázquez acted on behalf of ENVAC in this matter.

2012-10-18 Press
Ja 442 Business aspects of biotechnology 25 October 2012 Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium Thu, 10/25/2012 (All day) Liesbeth Weynants will teach a course on "IPR and Biotechnology" at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Liesbeth Weynants will teach a course on "IPR and Biotechnology" to civil and bio-engineers. The course is part of the "Business aspects of biotechnology" cycle.

2012-10-18 Events
Ja 443 IP-management - managing your most important assets 9 November 2012 Groot-Bijgaarden, Belgium Fri, 11/09/2012 (All day) Liesbeth Weynants will be giving a course in IP management at the IFB Masterclass Biotech-Biopharma 2012-2013

on 9 November 2012, Liesbeth Weynants will be giving a course in IP management at the IFB Masterclass Biotech-Biopharma 2012-2013.

2012-10-18 Events
Ja 452 European Patent Judges Forum 26 - 27 October 2012 Venice, Italy Fri, 10/26/2012 (All day) Carl De Meyer will take part in the European Patent Judges Forum on 26 – 27 October 2012. 2012-10-23 Events
Ja 453 Commented Belgian IP Codex 23/10/2012 Tue, 10/23/2012 (All day) Fabienne Brison, Steven Cattoor and Carina Gommers have each written a contribution in the recently published Belgian IP codex which compiles the most important legal instruments applicable in Belgium in the IP field, commenting on the Copyright, the SPC Regulation and the Customs Regulation respectively (Wet & Duiding – Reeks Economisch Recht. Boek 10: Intellectuele Rechten, F. Brison, M.C. Janssens en H. Vanhees (ed.), Brussel, Larcier, 2012). 2012-10-24 Publications
Ja 473 Carla Schoonderbeek joins Hoyng Monegier 1 November 2012 Wed, 10/31/2012 - 01:00 European Intellectual property law firm HOYNG MONEGIER is delighted to announce the appointment of Carla Schoonderbeek as a partner.

With the arrival of Carla, Hoyng Monegier has expanded its Life Sciences regulatory practice with one of Europe's leading regulatory Life Sciences lawyers. Carla, who joins from Hogan Lovells, will be accompanied by Bart Jong, who joins as counsel. Carla and Bart will operate from the Amsterdam and Brussels offices of Hoyng Monegier.

Hoyng Monegier’s Life Sciences team enjoys a wealth of experience in assisting clients in the areas of pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. With Carla's arrival, the firm's regulatory practice will now cover the full range of European and national regulatory matters.

Carla Schoonderbeek said: “I look forward to joining one of Europe’s finest IP teams in the Life Sciences industry. Cooperating with dedicated professionals of this outstanding quality will provide a great platform for our specialised regulatory practice."

Willem Hoyng, Managing Partner of Hoyng Monegier said: "We are delighted to welcome Carla on board. Her arrival means that our clients now, more than ever, can benefit at a European level from top-notch regulatory advice, combined with a seamless IP strategy.”

Carla Schoonderbeek’s appointment brings HOYNG MONEGIER’s partnership to 21.

2012-10-31 Press
Ja 477 Victory for Abbott in stent war against Medinol 5 November 2012 Sun, 11/04/2012 - 01:00 A victory at the Dutch Court of Appeal for Abbott in the stent war against Medinol. Medinol accused Abbott’s Multi-Link stents of infringing two of Medinol’s “meander pattern” stent patents.

Hoyng Monegier obtained a victory at the Dutch Court of Appeal for Abbott in the stent war against Medinol. Medinol accused Abbott’s Multi-Link stents of infringing two of Medinol’s “meander pattern” stent patents. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower Court’s judgment that there was no infringement.
Click here to view the Dutch Court of Appeal's decision.

Simon Dack and Peter van Schijndel acted for Abbott.

2012-11-05 Press
Ja 481 Nintendo obtains an important victory with respect to its technological protection measures. 8 November 2012 Wed, 11/07/2012 - 01:00 Hoyng Monegier won an important victory for Nintendo before the Tournai Criminal Court in a case involving the circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs).

For the first time, a Belgian court examined in detail both Nintendo’s technological protection measures and so-called R4 cards, also known as DSTT cards or linkers. It concluded that Nintendo’s TPMs are effective and that the sole purpose of the R4 cards is to circumvent these measures.

This decision sets a major precedent which will influence similar cases in the future.
 
Nintendo was represented by Benoit Michaux and Stéphanie Hermoye.

2012-11-08 Press
Ja 488 Recent developments in copyright law 29 November 2012 De Balie, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Thu, 11/29/2012 (All day) Joris van Manen will be speaking on recent developments in copyright law at the DeLex Jurisprudentielunch Merken-, modellen-en auteursrecht.

Joris van Manen will be speaking on recent developments in copyright law at the DeLex Jurisprudentielunch Merken-, modellen-en auteursrecht.

For more information, click here.

2012-11-23 Events
Ja 490 Actualiteiten Modellenrecht 13 December 2012 Utrecht, The Netherlands Thu, 12/13/2012 (All day) On 13 December 2012, Laura Fresco will teach a course on "Actualiteiten Modellenrecht" for Netlaw.

On 13 December 2012,  Laura Fresco will teach a course on "Actualiteiten Modellenrecht" for Netlaw.

2012-11-23 Events
Ja 491 Victory for Dutch Stichting Pink Ribbon before EUIPO. 23 November 2012 Thu, 11/22/2012 (All day) In its decision of 13 November, EUIPO’s Second Board of Appeal found the Benelux PINK RIBBON trade marks of the Dutch Stichting Pink Ribbon to be far from generic and instead to have a reputation in the Benelux.

In its decision of 13 November, EUIPO’s Second Board of Appeal found the Benelux PINK RIBBON trade marks of the Dutch Stichting Pink Ribbon (www.pinkribbon.nl) to be far from generic and instead to have a reputation in the Benelux. Pink Ribbon Inc.’s appeal, was dismissed and as a result its PINK RIBBON Community trade mark application cannot be registered. This had been filed for alcoholic drinks such as wines, liqueurs and sparkling wines, with regard to which the BoA confirmed that it is evident that the image of the earlier trade mark which is reputed in the fight against breast cancer would be tarnished because it is a known fact that alcohol is a risk factor for developing breast cancer. Click here to view the Second Board of Appeal's decision.
Stichting Pink Ribbon is represented by Marlou van de Braak.

2012-11-23 Press
Ja 492 Judge bans Next Popstar 24 November 2012 Fri, 11/23/2012 - 01:00 On 15 November 2012, The district court at The Hague ordered TV producer Talpa and broadcaster SBS to stop the television program "The Next Popstar" because the program’s title is too similar to the famous program "Popstars", previously aired by SBS.

On 15 November 2012, The district court at The Hague ordered TV producer Talpa and broadcaster SBS to stop the television program "The Next Popstar" because the program’s title is too similar to the famous program "Popstars", previously aired by SBS.
The summary trial judge found that the ‘Popstars’ trade mark was well-known in the sense of article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property.

Click here to view the court's decision (in Dutch).

Click here to view a link to the press coverage.


Popstars is owned by Banijay subsidiary Screentime Pty. Screentime Pty was represented by Joris van Manen and Jos Klaus.

2012-11-27 Press
Ja 495 Hoyng Monegier names three new partners 18 December 2012 Mon, 12/17/2012 (All day) Hoyng Monegier is delighted to announce the appointment of three new partners as of 1 January 2013: Carina Gommers, José Antonio Sanmartín and Álvaro Velázquez.

Hoyng Monegier is delighted to announce the appointment of three new partners as of 1 January 2013: Carina Gommers, José Antonio Sanmartín and Álvaro Velázquez.

Willem Hoyng, Managing Partner of Hoyng Monegier said, "We are extremely pleased that these three very talented lawyers are to join the partnership and we wanted to recognize their contribution to Hoyng Monegier’s success. On behalf of the partnership, I congratulate them on this achievement.”

Carina Gommers is based at Hoyng Monegier’s Brussels office. Carina is an IP litigator whose practice includes trademarks and design rights, predominantly in the sectors of consumer goods and electronics. She has extensive experience regarding customs counterfeit seizures.
She has worked on a number of high-profile cases, representing clients including Procter and Gamble, Avery Dennison and a famous US clothing retailer.

José Antonio and Álvaro, both based in Madrid,  have extensive expertise in IP litigation in the areas of patents, trademarks, design rights and unfair competition.

José Antonio Sanmartín often works with clients such as Seiko Epson Corporation, Envac and Coca-Cola in these areas. He is also highly experienced in border control proceedings and parallel importation matters. José Antonio also has extensive experience in commercial conflict resolution, in particular in cases involving technology issues, breach of contract, contentious contract termination and white collar crime.

Álvaro Velázquez  enjoys considerable experience in contractual drafting and regularly advises on advertising and labeling issues. Álvaro works for international clients across a range of sectors including life sciences, telecoms, engineering, food industry and fashion. Representative clients include Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Imperial Tobacco and Philips.

These appointments bring HOYNG MONEGIER’s partnership to 24 since its launch in January 2011.

2012-12-18 Press
Ja 496 Legal Alert: Territorial requirement for "use" of CTMs remains unclear 19 December 2012 Tue, 12/18/2012 - 01:00 After the judgement in the Omel / Onel case, which was handed down by the CJEU this afternoon it still remains unclear what the territorial scope of the “genuine use” is that is required for Community trade marks.

If not put to “genuine use” Community trade marks become null and void five years after registration. As Community trade marks cover the European Union, the question was put to the Court in how many Member States a Community trade mark is to be used to avoid becoming vulnerable to cancelation for lack of genuine use.


In today's judgement, the CJEU rules that the territorial borders of the Member States should be disregarded in the assessment of whether a trade mark has been put to ‘genuine use in the Community’ within the meaning of article 15(1) of the CTM Regulation (207/2009).
The Court insists that the CTM should be used in accordance with its essential function and for the purpose of maintaining or creating market share within the European Community.


The Court goes on to consider that there is some justification for assessing  that a Community trade mark should be used in a larger area than the territory of a single Member State in order for the use to be regarded as ‘genuine use’, but that it cannot be ruled out that, in certain circumstances, the market for the goods or services for which a Community trademark has been registered is in fact restricted to a single Member State.
It is for the national courts to decide in view of the particular circumstances,  including the “characteristics of the market concerned, the nature of the goods or services protected by the trademark and the territorial extent and the scale of the use as well as its frequency and regularity”.

The Court's declaration of right reads as follows:
Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the territorial borders of the Member States should be disregarded in the assessment of whether a trade mark has been put to ‘genuine use in the Community’ within the meaning of that provision.
A Community trade mark is put to ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 when it is used in accordance with its essential function and for the purpose of maintaining or creating market share within the European Community for the goods or services covered by it. It is for the referring court to assess whether the conditions are met in the main proceedings, taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including the characteristics of the market concerned, the nature of the goods or services protected by the trade mark and the territorial extent and the scale of the use as well as its frequency and regularity.



If you have any questions in connection with this update, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Amsterdam:
Joris van Manen
vanmanenj@hoyngmonegier.com

Brussels
Carl de Meyer
demeyerc@hoyngmonegier.com

Madrid
Laura Alonso
alonsol@hoyngmonegier.com

Paris
Marie Georges Picot
georgespicotm@hoyngmonegier.com

2012-12-20 Press
Ja 499 European Pharmaceutical Regulatory Boot Camp 28 January 2013 The Carlton on Madison, New York Mon, 01/28/2013 (All day) Carla Schoonderbeek will host a workshop during the European Pharmaceutical Regulatory Boot Camp.

On 28 January Carla Schoonderbook will host a workshop on "EU, EC, EMA Primer: A Structural Study of the EU Pharmaceutical Regulatory Framework for American Eyes". The conference will take place in New York on 28 and 29 January and will be organised by the American Conference Institute.

2013-01-14 Events
Ja 500 Hoyng Monegier obtains victory for Philips before the General Court 16 January 2013 Tue, 01/15/2013 (All day) Hoyng Monegier's Madrid office has obtained an important victory for Philips before the General Court in an appeal filed by Spectrum Brands (UK) Limited concerning the distinctiveness of the legend STEAM GLIDE on irons and its parts and fittings.

Hoyng Monegier's Madrid office has obtained an important victory for Philips before the General Court in an appeal filed by Spectrum Brands (UK) Limited concerning the distinctiveness of the legend STEAM GLIDE on irons and its parts and fittings.

Hoyng Monegier  had previously succeeded in an appeal filed on behalf of Philips against the decision of the Invalidity Division of the EUIPO which had initially declared STEAM GLIDE to be distinctive for the intended goods. Spectrum Brands challenged the decision of the Board before the General Court. In its judgment of 16 January 2013, the General Court confirms that STEAM GLIDE is a descriptive expression of the characteristics of the goods in issue.
The Court rejects the claim of the applicant on the perceived meaning of the term ‘glide’ in the context in question and also rejects the argument of the applicant that the combination of the terms STEAM GLIDE in English is syntactically unusual given that ‘glide’ is allegedly perceived as a verb and the word ‘steam’ is generally associated with a noun in an ‘adjective-noun’ combination. The Court acknowledges that the word ‘glide’ is also a noun in the English language and agrees with Philips that the syntax of STEAM GLIDE is thus analogous to the syntax in the descriptive expression ‘steam motion’.
As regards the applicant’s argument on extreme ellipsis in the expression STEAM GLIDE, the Court acknowledges that the English lexicon includes an almost infinite number of compounds and concludes that nothing prevents the expression from thus being interpreted clearly and directly by the relevant public in connection with the goods. The Court likewise refers to the allegation set forth on behalf of Philips concerning the treatment of the Court in cases of neologism, which clearly imply that the expression resulting from a combination of words must be sufficiently far removed from that produced by the mere combination of the meanings of its parts.
Furthermore, the Court also refuses the applicant’s complaint that the Board ignored the general interest that underlies article 7(1) (c ) since, as maintained on behalf of Philips, the application of the prohibition laid down by this article does not depend on there being a real, current or serious need to leave the sign or indication free for the benefit of third parties.
The Court finalizes by stating that it is sufficient that one of the absolute grounds for refusal listed in article 7(1) CTMR applies to make it non registrable. As regards the additional applicant’s complain that the Board failed to carry out an independent examination of the respective grounds for refusal set out in article 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c ) CTMR, the Court also rejects this contention and agrees with the allegations set forth on behalf of Philips that the prohibitions laid down in paragraph (b) and (c) of article 7(1) CTMR have a measure of overlap in that article 7(1) (c) only covers one specific circumstance in which a sign is not capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one undertaking from the goods and services of other undertakings.
The full text of the judgment can be read here.
Laura Alonso acted on behalf of Philips.

2013-01-16 Press
Ja 501 Loewe’s Reference ID television set does not infringe B&O’s design right or copyrights 21 January 2013 Sun, 01/20/2013 - 01:00 Hoyng Monegier’s Amsterdam office obtained an important victory for its client Loewe in a dispute against competitor Bang and Olufsen (hereafter, ‘B&O’), regarding Loewe’s Reference ID television sets design.

Hoyng Monegier’s Amsterdam office obtained an important victory for its client Loewe in a dispute against competitor Bang and Olufsen (hereafter, ‘B&O’), regarding Loewe’s Reference ID television sets design.
Loewe’s Reference ID ( ‘Individual Design’) was introduced by Loewe late summer 2012. B&O sought a European-wide injunction against Loewe’s Reference ID based on both a community design right and (alleged) copyrights related to their BeoVision 10.
The judge, acting in interlocutory proceedings, held that Loewe’s Reference ID differs on many points from B&O’s design registration. As a result, Loewe’s Reference ID conveys a different overall impression on the informed user and does not infringe B&O’s design rights. The claims based on copyright were also dismissed, after B&O failed to convince the judge that it held the copyright with respect to the BeoVision 10.
B&O is ordered to reimburse the full costs of the litigation (including the costs of assistance by Loewe’s German counsel).
Marlou van de Braak, Frank Eijsvogels and Annette Hirschfeld acted on behalf of Loewe. Click here to view the decision (Dutch)

2013-01-22 Press
Ja 503 Victory for Hunter Douglas/Luxaflex in case against Luxorflex 30 January 2013 Tue, 01/29/2013 - 01:00 Hunter Douglas Industries and Luxaflex Nederland, the owners of the well-known LUXAFLEX® trade marks and trade names, obtained an ex parte injunction against a Dutch company called Luxorflex.

Hunter Douglas Industries and Luxaflex Nederland, the owners of the well-known LUXAFLEX® trade marks and trade names, obtained an ex parte injunction against a Dutch company called Luxorflex.
The defendant was a former LUXAFLEX®-dealer who had recently started to use the trade mark and trade name ‘LUXORFLEX’ for goods and services similar to the ones for which the LUXAFLEX® trade marks are protected, such as venetian blinds (‘jaloezieën’) and sun screens (‘zonwering’).
The President of the District Court of The Hague decided that the trade name ‘Luxorflex’, the sign ‘Luxorflex’ as well as the logo ‘Luxorflex’ infringe the Luxaflex trade marks and trade names of Hunter Douglas Industries and Luxaflex Nederland.
A copy of the decision is to be found in Dutch here or here for an English translation.
Hunter Douglas Industries and Luxaflex Nederland were represented by Marlou van de Braak, Roeland Grijpink and Jos Klaus of the Amsterdam office of Hoyng Monégier.

2013-01-30 Press
Ja 504 Hoyng Monegier's Brussels office organises an IP year review: Highlights and Forecast 26 February 2013 HM's Brussels office Tue, 02/26/2013 (All day) Hoyng Monegier's Brussels office organises an IP year review: Highlights and Forecast

Hoyng Monegier's Brussels office organises a review of the key developments in IP in the past year and a forecast of what's to be expected in 2013. Speakers include Fabienne Brison, Carl De Meyer, Benoît Strowel and Steven Cattoor. The seminar will be held at the Brussels office on Tuesday 26 February from 1pm to 5pm.

To register for this seminar, please send an email to brussels@hoyngmonegier.com

2013-01-31 Events
Ja 505 Clearing the way for no delay 01 February 2013 Thu, 01/31/2013 - 01:00 Article by Alvaro Velazquez published in the February edition of Intellectual Property Magazine: Comment on the Spanish Supreme Court's decision that there must be no delay on the effectiveness of the European patents set out by the EPC. Hoyng Monegier's Spanish office acted for Envac in this matter.

Click here to read an article by Alvaro Velazquez published in the February edition of Intellectual Property Magazine: Comment on the Spanish Supreme Court's decision that there must be no delay on the effectiveness of the European patents set out by the EPC. Hoyng Monegier's Spanish office acted for Envac in this matter.

 

 

2013-02-06 Publications
Ja 506 Astellas prevails in case against Synthon 7 February 2013 Wed, 02/06/2013 - 01:00 Hoyng Monegier obtained an important victory for its client Astellas. The provisional relief judge ordered the alleged patent infringer Synthon to provide access to documents seized by Astellas, even though it has not yet been established that Synthon infringes Astellas’ patent.

Hoyng Monegier obtained an important victory for its client Astellas. The provisional relief judge ordered the alleged patent infringer Synthon to provide access to documents seized by Astellas, even though it has not yet been established that Synthon infringes Astellas’ patent. The provisional relief judge accepted a legitimate interest on the part of Astellas to gain access to the documents, as they possibly could help establish that Synthon has committed infringing and/or unlawful acts.

Astellas was represented by Willem Hoyng and Frank Eijsvogels of the Amsterdam office of Hoyng Monegier. The full text of the judgment can be read here.

2013-02-07 Press
Ja 511 Michiel de Baat joins Hoyng Monegier's patent prosecution group 14 February 2013 Wed, 02/13/2013 - 01:00 Hoyng Monegier is pleased to announce that Michiel de Baat has joined the firm's patent prosecution group as Of Counsel. Michiel will be responsible for the mechanical patent prosecution area.

Hoyng Monegier is pleased to announce that Michiel de Baat has joined the firm's patent prosecution group as Of Counsel. Michiel will be responsible for the mechanical patent prosecution area.
Michiel studied physics and law at Leiden University, and has over 10 years of experience as a patent attorney in The Netherlands and Belgium. He assists a number of companies in developing and implementing intellectual property rights policies, focusing on patents not only as a means of protection, but also as a commercial instrument.  He brings a wealth of experience in different areas, in particular in the automotive and agricultural industries.
The addition of Michiel to Hoyng Monegier’s patent prosecution team complements its significant growth in the past months with the earlier arrival of Jeannette Verbart (Of Counsel), Andrew Lin and Niels Zelders.

2013-02-14 Press
Ja 516 Hoyng Monegier obtains important victory for Danisco before Dutch Court of Appeal. 1 March 2013 Thu, 02/28/2013 - 01:00 Hoyng Monegier obtained a victory for Danisco before the Dutch Court of Appeal with important implications for the legal practice.

Hoyng Monegier obtained a victory for Danisco before the Dutch Court of Appeal with important implications for the legal practice. Following the invalidation of a patent owned by Novozymes and the rejection of its infringement claims, the Court of Appeal awarded Danisco its reasonable attorney’s fees. In light of a recent decision of the European Court of Justice (C-108/11; Bericap/Plastinnova), Novozymes argued that awarding costs in connection with an invalidity-claim was no longer in conformity with European law. The Court of Appeal ruled that Bericap does not preclude an award of legal costs in case the invalidity is raised in connection with the enforcement of this patent. In its decision, the Court rejected Novozymes’ request to refer questions of law to the European Court of Justice as it considered the situation at hand not to be in violation with Bericap/Plastinnova (which dealt with a stand-alone invalidity case with no connection to the enforcement of the IP-right in question).

Click [here] to download the judgment (in Dutch).

Danisco was represented by Bart van den Broek and Geert Theuws of the Hoyng Monegier Amsterdam office.

2013-03-01 Press
Ja 517 Steven Cattoor to speak at C5's forum on Biotech Patenting 1 March 2013 Munich, Germany Tue, 03/12/2013 - 01:00 Steven Cattoor will be speaking at C5's Forum on Biotech Patenting.

Steven Cattoor will be speaking at C5's Forum on Biotech Patenting, which will be held in Munich on 13 and 14 March. Steven will be speaking about Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPC).Click here to view the conference's program.

2013-03-01 Events
Ja 518 Hoyng Monegier wins two ILO Client Choice Awards 4 March 2013 Sun, 03/03/2013 - 01:00 Hoyng Monegier won the ILO Client Choice Award 2013 for best IP firm in the Netherlands. Joris van Manen was awarded with the Client Choice Award 2013 for best Trademark lawyer in the Netherlands.

Hoyng Monegier won the ILO Client Choice Award 2013 for best IP firm in the Netherlands. Joris van Manen was awarded with the Client Choice Award 2013 for best Trademark lawyer in the Netherlands.

2013-03-04 Press
Ja 519 Intellectuele Eigendomsrechten: “Auteursrecht: automatisch en kosteloos. Maak er gebruik van!" 21 March 2013 Huis van de Economie, Ghent, Belgium Wed, 03/20/2013 - 01:00 Fabienne Brison will be speaking about copyright at Entreprise Europe Vlaanderen.

Fabienne Brison will be speaking about copyright at Entreprise Europe Vlaanderen. Click here for more information about this seminar.

2013-03-20 Events
Ja 520 International conference on IP 18-19 April 2013 Bucharest Thu, 04/18/2013 - 02:00 Willem Hoyng will be speaking on “What makes a judge good IP judge – a litigator’s view” at the International conference on IP in Bucharest 2013-03-29 Events
Ja 521 MARQUES Annual Conference 17-20 September 2013 Monte Carlo Mon, 09/16/2013 - 02:00 On 20 September 2013, Marlou van de Braak will debate trademarks in social media and hot trademark topics (11.45 AM - 12.45 PM) at the MARQUES Annual Conference in Monte Carlo, Monaco.

On 20 September 2013, Marlou van de Braak will debate trademarks in social media and hot trademark topics (11.45 AM - 12.45 PM) at the MARQUES Annual Conference in Monte Carlo, Monaco.

2013-04-05 Events
Ja 522 Seminar German Patentanwaltskammer 19 November 2013 Munich Mon, 11/18/2013 (All day) On 19 November 2013, Willem Hoyng will be speaking on UPC and Rules of Procedure at the Seminar of the German Patentanwaltskammer in Munich.

On 19 November 2013, Willem Hoyng will be speaking on UPC and Rules of Procedure at the Seminar of the German Patentanwaltskammer in Munich.

2013-04-05 Events
Ja 523 IPO European Patent Practice Committee 27 May 2013 Brussels Mon, 05/27/2013 - 02:00 On 27 May 2013, Willem Hoyng will be speaking about the UPC Agreement at the IPO European Patent Practice Committee in Brussels. 2013-04-05 Events
Ja 524 Leidse IE Alumni 26 September 2013 Leiden Wed, 09/25/2013 - 02:00 On 26 September 2013, Willem Hoyng will be speaking about the Unified Patent for the Leidse IE Alumni in Leiden.

On 26 September 2013, Willem Hoyng will be speaking about the Unified Patent for the Leidse IE Alumni in Leiden.

2013-04-05 Events
Ja 525 CIER: “Het Europese Eenheidsoctrooi” 2 October 2013 Utrecht Tue, 10/01/2013 - 02:00 On 2 October 2013, Willem Hoyng will be speaking on "Procederen voor het Unified Patent Court” at the seminar “Het Europese Eenheidsoctrooi” in Utrecht.

On 2 October 2013, Willem Hoyng will be speaking on "Procederen voor het Unified Patent Court” at the seminar “Het Europese Eenheidsoctrooi” in Utrecht.

2013-04-05 Events
Ja 526 iMinds-SMIT: Private Television in Europe: Connecting to the future conference 19 April 2013 Brussels Fri, 04/19/2013 - 02:00 On 19 April 2013, Fabienne Brison will be acting as chair on Private television connects to partners: New cooperation strategies and legal limits at the Private Television in Europe: Connecting to the future conference organised by Center for Studies on Media Information and Telecommunication (iMinds-SMIT) of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels. 2013-04-05 Events
Ja 527 IP en digitale omgeving 11 June 2013 Brussels Tue, 06/11/2013 - 02:00 On 11 June 2013, Fabienne Brison will be speaking on Copyright at De Middagen van de Intellectuele Eigendom organised by the VBO/FEB in Brussels 2013-04-05 Events
Ja 528 Hoyng Monegier top tier firm in Legal 500 EMEA rankings 5 April 2013 Fri, 04/05/2013 - 02:00 Hoyng Monegier is prominently featured in the Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa rankings of 2013. We have been recommended as a top tier firm in two practice areas: • France: Intellectual property - Boutiques • Netherlands: Intellectual property

Hoyng Monegier is prominently featured in the Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa rankings of 2013. We have been recommended as a top tier firm in two practice areas:
• France: Intellectual property - Boutiques
• Netherlands: Intellectual property

Hoyng Monegier LLP has also been recommended in the following practice areas:
• Belgium: Intellectual property + Media and entertainment
• Netherlands: Media and entertainment
• Spain: Intellectual property

Besides our firm’s rankings, four lawyers are listed in The Legal 500 EMEA 2013 'Leading lawyers' list and twelve lawyers are recommended in the editorial.

Read more on the recommendations

2013-04-05 Press
Ja 529 Chambers Global 2013: Excellent results for Hoyng Monegier 14 March 2013 Thu, 03/14/2013 - 01:00 The Chambers Global 2013 results are online. We are proud of the excellent results for our teams and the firm as a whole.

The Chambers Global 2013 results are online. We are proud of the excellent results for our teams and the firm as a whole.

Hoyng Monégier LLP

Sources say: "A pragmatic team with a business-focused outlook and wide-ranging experience." "Helpful and reactive, the staff are great at clearly explaining legal matters to non-lawyers."

Country results

Netherlands

IP General - Mostly Trade Mark/Copyright (Band 1)

Joris Van Manen (Band 2)
Marlou van de Braak (Band 4)
Willem Hoyng (Band 2)

Patent (Band 1)
Bart van den Broek (Band 1)
Simon Dack (Band 2)
Willem Hoyng (Star Individual/ Band *)

France

Intellectual Property (Band 2)

Denis Monégier du Sorbier (Band 1)

Marie George-Picot (Band 3)

Spain

Intellectual Property - Patents & Trade Marks (Band 3)

Álvaro Velázquez (Band ‘W’: Associates to watch )

Laura Alonso (Band 3)

Luis Fernández-Novoa (Band 2)

 

2013-04-08 Press
Ja 530 Young EPLAW congress 22 April 2013 Brussels Mon, 04/22/2013 - 02:00 On Monday 22 April 2013, Geert Theuws (HM Amsterdam Office) will be a panel member on the Young EPLAW Congress.

On Monday 22 April 2013, Geert Theuws (HM Amsterdam Office) will be a panel member on the Young EPLAW Congress. He will be dealing with the topic ‘Standards essential patents: reports on the case law in Europe and the US and thoughts for the future’. The venue for the congress will be the Le Méridien Hotel, Brussels, Belgium.

For more information, please click here.

2013-04-12 Events
Ja 531 Intellectual Property Law Summer School 2013 21 August 2013 Cambridge Tue, 08/20/2013 - 02:00 On Wednesday 21 August 2013, Geert Theuws (HM Amsterdam Office) will be speaking at the Intellectual Property Law Summer School in Cambridge.

On Wednesday 21 August 2013, Geert Theuws (HM Amsterdam Office) will be speaking at the Intellectual Property Law Summer School in Cambridge. His lecture “Using the Customs regulations in anti-counterfeiting” will include the following topics:

  • Making customs procedures work for your products;
  • EU transhipment case law;
  • Nokia vs. HMRC and Philips vs Lucheng;
  • Regulation 1383/2003 as part of a litigation strategy;
  • Creating and implementing a practical anti-counterfeiting strategy

The venue for the event will be Downing College, Cambridge, The United Kingdom.

More information is to be found here.

2013-04-12 Events
Ja 532 Hoyng Monegier receives two MIP Global Awards 18 April 2013 Wed, 04/17/2013 - 02:00 Hoyng Monegier received two awards last night at the Managing Intellectual Property 8th Global Awards ceremony at The Dorchester Hotel in London: - 'Europe - Patents - Life Sciences IP Firm of the Year' Award for 2013 - 'France Contentious IP Firm of the Year' Award for 2013 The Global Awards recognize leading firms from over 40 jurisdictions worldwide and highlight firms, individuals and companies driving the IP market at an international level.

Hoyng Monegier received two awards last night at the Managing Intellectual Property 8th Global Awards ceremony at The Dorchester Hotel in London:
- 'Europe - Patents - Life Sciences IP Firm of the Year' Award for 2013
- 'France Contentious IP Firm of the Year' Award for 2013

The Global Awards recognize leading firms from over 40 jurisdictions worldwide and highlight firms, individuals and companies driving the IP market at an international level.

2013-04-18 Press
Ja 533 Victory for Easy Sanitairy Solutions in triangular drain patent case against Blücher 25 April 2013 Wed, 04/24/2013 - 02:00 Hoyng Monegier obtained an important victory for Easy Sanitairy Solutions (ESS) in infringement proceedings against Blücher on the basis of the triangular drain patent of ESS.

Hoyng Monegier obtained an important victory for Easy Sanitairy Solutions (ESS) in infringement proceedings against Blücher on the basis of the triangular drain patent of ESS.

Blücher had previously filed opposition at the European patent office with Hoyng Monegier victorious in achieving maintenance of the patent before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Blücher presented additional prior art in the infringement proceedings, argued that the patent was invalid due to lack of novelty and inventive step and that its triangular drain products that are offered for sale in the Netherlands do not infringe the patent. According to Blücher, there was no room in this case to apply the problem-solution approach to inventive step, which should be replaced with a “common-sense approach”. The Court dismissed Blücher’s invalidity arguments and found that Blücher’s inventive step arguments are riddled with hind-sight. Furthermore, the Court found that Blücher’s triangular drain products which are offered in the Netherlands infringe the patent, and ordered Blücher to pay a substantial part of the costs of the proceedings.

Click [here] to download the judgment (in Dutch)

 

ESS was represented in the infringement proceedings by Frank Eijsvogels and Christopher Pierce of Hoyng Monegier’s Amsterdam office.

2013-04-25 Press
Ja 537 All offices Hoyng Monegier top ranked in IAM PATENT1000 28 May 2013 Mon, 05/27/2013 - 02:00 Hoyng Monegier is prominently featured in the IAM PATENT1000 rankings of 2013. Rights holders “have no hesitation in recommending Hoyng Monegier – they are the best IP boutique on the Continent. The overall quality across their four offices is second to none”.

Hoyng Monegier is prominently featured in the IAM PATENT1000 rankings of 2013.

Rights holders “have no hesitation in recommending Hoyng Monegier – they are the best IP boutique on the Continent. The overall quality across their four offices is second to none”.

Amsterdam:
"It is unique among its competitors in offering top-tier patent litigation skills alongside deep-seated prosecution know-how. Clients profit from seamless integration of the two departments."

Brussels:
"The 'aggressive and positive' team is top of the list for many of the world’s leading pharmaceutical innovators."

Paris:
"The firm occupies an unusual space in the French market, situated between compact boutiques and global commercial powerhouses. Clients suggest this is “a fantastic position.”

Madrid:
"As well as accepting incoming work from across the firm network, its cadre of experienced practitioners are highly sought after in their own rights "..." a group that is particularly well versed in contentious patent matters."

2013-05-28 Press
Ja 543 Unitary Patent & Court Conference Friday 28th June 2013 INPI, Paris Fri, 06/28/2013 (All day) Unitary Patent & Court Conference, Friday 28th June, INPI, Paris Expectations, wishes and fears: be part of an international focus group! On 28 June Premier Cercle™, in association with knowledge partners Hoyng Monegier LLP, Reimann Osterrieth Köhler Haft and Powell Gilbert LLP, organises a full day of great debates at the capital that will host the main seat of the Unified Patent Court.

Unitary Patent & Court Conference

Expectations, wishes and fears: be part of an international focus group!

On 28 June Premier Cercle™, in association with knowledge partners Hoyng Monegier LLP, Reimann Osterrieth Köhler Haft and Powell Gilbert LLP, organises a full day of great debates at the capital that will host the main seat of the Unified Patent Court.

See programme

2013-06-04 Events
Ja 544 New York State Bar Association IP Section Fall Meeting 19 October 2013 Lake George, New York, USA Fri, 10/18/2013 - 02:00 Willem Hoyng is a speaker at New York State Bar Association IP Section Fall Meeting on the subject European Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court

Willem Hoyng is a speaker at New York State Bar Association IP Section Fall Meeting on the subject European Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court

2013-06-05 Events
Ja 545 Jurisprudentielunch Merken-, Modellen- en Auteursrecht 19 June 2013 Amsterdam Wed, 06/19/2013 - 02:00 Joris van Manen will discuss the most important recent case law in the field of trade mark-, design- and copyright law 2013-06-05 Events
Ja 546 Victory for Enpros: competitor's spout patent nullified 6 June 2013 Wed, 06/05/2013 - 02:00 In a patent case that was mainly handled by Hoyng Monegier's patent attorney Michiel de Baat the competitor's patent was nullified completely.

In a patent case that was (mainly) handled by Hoyng Monegier's patent attorney Michiel de Baat the competitor's patent was nullified completely.

Both Enpros and Smartseal (inventor Naesje) developed a drinking container having a spout with valve that opens upon sucking the spout. Enpros requested nullification of the (Dutch part of) EP 1 404 587 registered in the name of Naesje based on added matter, novelty and inventive step objections.

Read the judgment (in Dutch)

2013-06-06 Press
Ja 547 Hoyng Monegier obtains landmark Supreme Court decision for Lundbeck 7 June 2013 Thu, 06/06/2013 - 02:00 Hoyng Monegier obtained an important victory for Lundbeck at the Supreme Court. In an earlier decision, the Court of Appeal had invalidated Lundbeck’s product claims covering escitalopram, which is the active substance of its blockbuster drug Lexapro®. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal as it was held to be wrong in law. The incidental appeal lodged by the generics was essentially dismissed, reaffirming the validity of Lundbeck’s method claims and SPC.

Hoyng Monegier obtained an important victory for Lundbeck at the Supreme Court. In an earlier decision, the Court of Appeal had invalidated Lundbeck’s product claims covering escitalopram, which is the active substance of its blockbuster drug Lexapro®. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal as it was held to be wrong in law. The incidental appeal lodged by the generics was essentially dismissed, reaffirming the validity of Lundbeck’s method claims and SPC. The case was referred back to the Court of Appeal for further handling.

Lundbeck was represented by Willem Hoyng and Jeroen den Hartog of the Amsterdam office. The full text of the judgment can be read here.

 

2013-06-13 Press
Ja 548 Important victory in appeal for Procter & Gamble in misleading advertising litigation (Barcelona) 12 June 2013 Tue, 06/11/2013 - 02:00 Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid Office has obtained another important victory for its client Procter & Gamble (P&G) in the misleading advertising/unfair competition litigation brought against the advertising campaign of TRESemmé hair care products in Spain. On 12 June 2013, Chamber 15th of the Provincial Court of Appeals of Barcelona (the Spanish Appeal Court with the longest-standing specialization in Intellectual Property matters) served its final decision on appeal in the proceedings brought by P&G against ALBERTO CULVER INC (ACI) and its distributor in Spain MYRURGIA/ANTONIO PUIG (PUIG) for the misleading advertisements of TRESemmé products.

Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid Office has obtained another important victory for its client Procter & Gamble (P&G) in the misleading advertising/unfair competition litigation brought against the advertising campaign of TRESemmé hair care products in Spain.

On 12 June 2013, Chamber 15th of the Provincial Court of Appeals of Barcelona (the Spanish Appeal Court with the longest-standing specialization in Intellectual Property matters) served its final decision on appeal in the proceedings brought by P&G against ALBERTO CULVER INC (ACI) and its distributor in Spain MYRURGIA/ANTONIO PUIG (PUIG) for the misleading advertisements of TRESemmé products. See attached decision (Spanish).

The appeal decision, upon the challenge filed by our team, dismissed the appeal brought by ACI against the Judgement of Commercial Court No. 1 of Barcelona dated 8 May 2012, which had ordered ACI to cease using the slogan ‘Used by Professionals’ in the advertising and promotion of its hair care products.

In addition, granting the appeal brought by Hoyng Monegier on behalf of P&G, the Court of Appeals revoked the findings of the lower Court which had discharged the Spanish distributor PUIG for its lack of liability in the design of the advertising campaign and confirmed the joint liability of both ACI and PUIG. The appeal decision also corrected the Commercial Court and granted P&G’s action for publication of the Judgment.

This is a major successful step in the litigation which started almost 5 years ago when the TRESemmé products were launched in Spain and P&G filed a complaint against PUIG for their misleading advertising before the Advertising Jury of the Advertising Self Regulatory Organisation Autocontrol. Although the Spanish Jury ruled in favour of P&G both in the first instance and on appeal, ACI, which was not a member of Autocontrol, continued with the campaign, thus obliging P&G to bring the case before the Spanish Courts, in November 2008.

The decision issued now by Section 15 (Commercial) of the Provincial Court of Appeals of Barcelona, after a thorough review of the case and all the evidence on file, has confirmed last year’s decision of the Court of first instance (see news item here), and declared that the advertising is indeed misleading since it leads consumers to mistakenly believe that the TRESemmé products were used by stylists and professionals when they were launched, which was not true, which is an act of illicit advertising and unfair competition.

But the appeal decision went further than the Commercial Court in granting P&G’s arguments and finally settled the question of the liability of the distributor PUIG in the advertising campaign, which had been heavily contested by the defendants on the basis of prior contradictory precedents (and actually gave rise to separate proceedings between PUIG and the SRO Autocontrol), and also granted a very important and effective order for publication of the decision in four major weekly magazines in Spain.

PROCTER AND GAMBLE was assisted by Luis Fernández-Novoa and Álvaro Velázquez.

2013-06-13 Press
Ja 549 Dag van IE en Internet 26 September 2013 Breukelen Wed, 09/25/2013 - 02:00 Marlou van de Braak will be speaking on Trademarks & Internet.

At the Sdu conference 'Dag van IE en Internet' Marlou van de Braak will be speaking on Trademarks & Internet. For the programme visit the conference website.

2013-06-27 Events
Ja 550 Pharmaceutical Law Academy 2013 10-11 September 2013 Cambridge, UK Mon, 09/09/2013 - 02:00 On Tuesday 10 and Wednesday 11 September 2013, Carla Schoonderbeek will be speaking at the Pharmaceutical Law Academy in Cambridge.

On Tuesday 10 and Wednesday 11 September 2013, Carla Schoonderbeek will be speaking at the Pharmaceutical Law Academy in Cambridge.

The venue for the event will be Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, The United Kingdom.
More information on the lectures is to be found here.

2013-07-01 Events
Ja 551 Actualia intellectuele eigendomsrechten 4 October 2013 Holiday Inn Gent Expo Thu, 10/03/2013 - 02:00 Fabienne Brison will discuss recent developments in copyright (auteursrechten) at the seminar 'Actualia intellectuele eigendomsrechten' in Gent.

Fabienne Brison will discuss recent developments in copyright at the seminar 'Actualia intellectuele eigendomsrechten' in Gent. (language: Flemish)

Open link to download programme

2013-07-09 Events
Ja 552 Intellectual Property Magazine: Spanish imposition June 2013 Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:00 Spanish IP expert Laura Cantero wrote an article for Intellectual Property Magazine with a brief comment on the preliminary draft bill of March 2013 amending, among others, the Spanish Copyright Act, aimed at strengthening tools to fight piracy.

Spanish IP expert Laura Cantero wrote an article for Intellectual Property Magazine with a brief comment on the preliminary draft bill of March 2013 amending, among others, the Spanish Copyright Act, aimed at strengthening tools to fight piracy.

You can find the article here.

2013-07-15 Publications
Ja 555 The Spanish Supreme Court gets serious on patents 1 August 2013 Wed, 07/31/2013 - 02:00 Luis Fernandez-Novoa, Jose Antonio Sanmartin and Alvaro Velazquez wrote an article for the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2013 volume #8 on why the Supreme Court, before 2011, accepted so few patent cases, and why that number suddenly increased drastically. Moreover, it provides a critical and comprehensive evaluation of the most important cassational judgments rendered in 2011 and 2012 in the field of patent law.

Luis Fernandez-Novoa, Jose Antonio Sanmartin and Alvaro Velazquez wrote an article for the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2013 volume #8 on why the Spanish Supreme Court, before 2011, accepted so few patent cases, and why that number suddenly increased drastically. Moreover, it provides a critical and comprehensive evaluation of the most important cassational judgments rendered in 2011 and 2012 in the field of patent law.

You can read the full article here (website Oxford journals).

2013-07-29 Publications
Ja 556 NYSE Euronext wins trademark dispute 8 July 2013 Sun, 07/07/2013 (All day) Hoyng Monegier helped NYSE Euronext obtain an important victory against rival exchange The Order Machine (TOM) and internet broker BinckBank, in a preliminary trademark ruling at the Hague District Court.

Hoyng Monegier helped NYSE Euronext obtain an important victory against rival exchange The Order Machine (TOM) and internet broker BinckBank, in a preliminary trademark ruling at the Hague District Court.

Euronext runs the Dutch stock exchange Euronext Amsterdam, and publishes the AEX-index which tracks the value of the 25 biggest funds traded there. Euronext also runs the derivatives (options) exchange NYSE Liffe Amsterdam. The most popular option contracts on the Dutch market are the AEX-index options, which use the AEX-index as the underlying value. These options are designed and issued by Euronext, and are traded under the product name (ticker) “AEX”.

TOM is an alternative exchange, where both stock and options can be traded. Earlier this year, TOM introduced its own options which used the AEX-index as the underlying value. These options were offered to the public by BinckBank under the same ticker as Euronext's own index options.

On 8 July 2013 the Court of the Hague District Court found that TOM and BinckBank infringed the trademark rights of NYSE Euronext, by using a ticker that is (almost) identical to Euronext's ticker. By order of the Court TOM had to change its ticker symbols and to inform its customers that it had infringed on Euronext trademark rights. The preliminary ruling precedes a full trial, in which more issues are raised.

Euronext was represented by Joris van Manen and Peter van Schijndel of the Amsterdam office. The full text of the judgment can be read here (Dutch).

2013-07-30 Press
Ja 562 Netlaw seminar Cassation for IP-lawyers 19 September 2013 Amsterdam, The Netherlands Thu, 09/19/2013 (All day) On 19 September 2013, Willem Hoyng (Amsterdam office) will be speaking on IP issues and cassation before the Dutch Supreme Court. This Netlaw seminar wil be held at the Amsterdam office of Hoyng Monégier.

On 19 September 2013, Willem Hoyng (Amsterdam office) will be speaking on IP issues and cassation before the Dutch Supreme Court. This Netlaw seminar wil be held at the Amsterdam office of Hoyng Monégier.

For more information, see: http://www.netlawacademy.nl/agenda.php.

2013-09-06 Events
Ja 563 Unitary patent workshop Oxford 5 October 2013 Oxford, United Kingdom Sat, 10/05/2013 (All day) On 5 October 2013, Willem Hoyng (Amsterdam office) will be a speaker on a workshop on unitary patents at the Institute of European and Comparative Law in Oxford, United Kingdom. His lecture is called “Forward-Looking Perspectives”. 2013-09-06 Events
Ja 565 Lustrum congress Tilburg University 22 November 2013 Tilburg, The Netherlands Fri, 11/22/2013 (All day) During the Lustrum congress of Tilburg University, Willem Hoyng will be giving a workshop called “Patent Law and Global Law”. 2013-09-06 Events
Ja 566 Academy of European Law Conference 26 November 2013 Brussels, Belgium Tue, 11/26/2013 (All day) On 26 November 2013, Willem Hoyng will be speaking on the latest developments on the EU unitary patent at the Academy of European Law Conference in Brussels, Belgium. 2013-09-06 Events
Ja 567 Engels The rulings of the Jury of Autocontrol in the complaints against advertising of tooth pastes for sensitive teeth filed by Glaxo and Colgate. 10/09/2013 Tue, 09/10/2013 (All day) The rulings of the Jury of Autocontrol in the complaints against advertising of tooth pastes for sensitive teeth filed by Glaxo and Colgate. Application of the General Code of Advertising Practice and the Confianza Online Ethical Code.

In the last years, the advertisers of toothpastes for sensitive teeth have filed against each other several complaints before the Jury of Autocontrol, which has allowed the Self-Regulation Organisation to draw an interesting body of advertising law doctrine regarding several aspects of the advertising of these products in the border between medicines and cosmetics. In particular, this article analyses the decisions regarding the products Sensodyne and Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief, which comprise interesting rulings about the interpretation and the evidence of excluding and derogatory advertising claims relating to the effectiveness of the products, the use of recommendations by professionals and the use of users’ testimonials, amongst other questions. The author concludes offering some teachings arising from such doctrine, which may serve as a guideline for the advertisers of this kind of products. This article was written by Alvaro Velazquez

2013-09-11 Publications
Ja 568 Spaans Las resoluciones del Jurado de Autocontrol en las reclamaciones sobre publicidad de las pastas para dientes sensibles presentadas por Glaxo y Colgate. Tue, 09/10/2013 (All day) Las resoluciones del Jurado de Autocontrol en las reclamaciones sobre publicidad de las pastas para dientes sensibles presentadas por Glaxo y Colgate. Aplicación del Código de Conducta Publicitaria y del Código Ético de Confianza Online http://www.cefi.es/publicaciones/comunicacionespropiedadindustrial

En los últimos años se han planteado ante el Jurado de Autocontrol varias reclamaciones cruzadas entre las empresas anunciantes de dentífricos para la sensibilidad dental que han permitido al organismo autorregulatorio perfilar un interesante corpus de doctrina publicitaria con respecto a diversos aspectos de la publicidad de estos productos frontera entre los medicamentos y los cosméticos. En particular, en este artículo se analizan las resoluciones relativas a los productos Sensodyne y Colgate Sensitive Pro-Alivio, que contienen importantes decisiones sobre la interpretación y la prueba de las alegaciones publicitarias excluyentes y denigratorias relativas a la efectividad de los productos, el uso de las recomendaciones por parte de los profesionales y la utilización de testimonios de usuarios, entre otras cuestiones. Como conclusión, el autor ofrece ciertas pautas extractadas de dicha doctrina, que pueden servir de guía a los anunciantes de este tipo de productos.

2013-09-11 Publications
Ja 569 Client seminar: Solvay v. Honeywell: What's the impact on your business? 11/10/2013 Brussels, Avenue des Nerviens 9-31 Fri, 10/11/2013 (All day) Learn from experts about strategies for cross-border actions in Belgium and in Europe.

Can a Court decision from a foreign judge paralyze your entire European operation? Is it safer to stock goods in a distribution center or on your premises?

Panel discussion and round table with Prof. Johan Erauw, Prof. Willem Hoyng and others to hear expert insights on essential questions including:

Is Solvay limited to preliminary cross-border injunctions in the strict sense? Or can it be applied to ex parte requests and descriptive seizures including effective seizure measures?
What’s the risk of storing your goods in a country where the European patent has not been validated?
What is the likely impact on distribution centers?
Does Solvay have an influence on other intellectual property rights such as copyright?
What are the different approaches in Belgium, the Netherlands and France?

Speakers: Prof. Johan Erauw (University of Ghent), Prof. Willem Hoyng (University of Tilburg), Carina Gommers (Belgium), Joris van Manen (The Netherlands) and Sophie Micallef (France).
Date: Friday 11 October 2013
Timing : 14:00 – 16:30 followed by a Q&A and drinks
Venue: Hoyng Monegier: Avenue des Nerviens-Nerviërslaan 9-31, 1040 Brussels

Register before 4 October 2013, send an email to brussels@hoyngmonegier.com

2013-09-12 Events
Ja 570 Legal Alert: Conservatory seizure of evidence possible in non-intellectual property right cases 13 September 2013 Mon, 09/16/2013 (All day) In a judgment handed down on 13 September 2013, the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that a conservatory seizure of evidence is possible in non-intellectual property right cases. In accordance with the EU Enforcement Directive, the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure includes specific provisions for conservatory seizure of evidence in cases where intellectual property rights are enforced.

In a judgment handed down on 13 September 2013, the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that a conservatory seizure of evidence is possible in non-intellectual property right cases.
In accordance with the EU Enforcement Directive, the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure includes specific provisions for conservatory seizure of evidence in cases where intellectual property rights are enforced.

Inspired by this effective enforcement tool, claimants have in the past years regularly requested leave for conservatory seizure of evidence outside of the scope of intellectual property right infringements. These requests were grounded on general provisions in the Code, relating to the disclosure of specific documents and conservatory seizure of goods whose surrender is requested.

Although lower Dutch Courts generally were inclined to grant such relief, there was debate about the legality of this measure outside of the scope of intellectual property right infringements. The provisional relief judge of the District Court of Amsterdam decided to ask to the Supreme Court to shed its light on the issue.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court rules that the current general provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure provide sufficient basis for conservatory seizure of evidence outside of the scope of intellectual property right infringements.

The Supreme Court goes on to consider that certain principles need to be adhered to when making and deciding on applications for such seizure. For example, the documents whose seizure is requested must be specified in as much detail as possible; care must be taken that the exercise does not result in a fishing expedition. Also, the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity must be taken into account. The requesting party must substantiate its interest in the seizure and explain why such seizure is necessary. There must be a real risk that the evidence will otherwise be lost and it must not be possible to prove the alleged fact in another, for the requested party less harmful way. Finally, the request must not be granted if the confidentiality of the documents whose seizure is requested is not sufficiently safeguarded.

We welcome this pragmatic Supreme Court decision. It puts an end to the existing uncertainty surrounding conservatory seizures of evidence in non-intellectual property right cases, and confirms that our clients can continue to make use of this effective enforcement tool.

If you have any questions in connection with this update, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Annette Hirschfeld or Geert Theuws

2013-09-16 Press
Ja 583 Engels Hoyng Monegier achieves one of the largest damages awards in Spanish patent litigation history 30 September 2013 Mon, 09/30/2013 (All day) Following a win before the Supreme Court in the patent litigation case pitting Envac against the Spanish company Ros Roca, Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid team has succeeded in obtaining a large award of damages to be paid by Ros Roca to Envac for patent infringement. The damages awarded achieve a new milestone in Spanish patent litigation.

Follow up on our press release of 17 October 2012. Following a win before the Supreme Court in the patent litigation case pitting Envac against the Spanish company Ros Roca, Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid team has succeeded in obtaining a large award of damages to be paid by Ros Roca to Envac for patent infringement. The damages awarded achieve a new milestone in Spanish patent litigation.

Fully accepting the claims made by Hoyng Monegier, Barcelona’s Commercial Court no. 3 ordered that Ros Roca must compensate Envac to the tune of 2.8 million Euros. This sum is the hypothetical royalty fee the defendant would have had to pay to Envac if it had lawfully used the patented technology during five projects; which projects Ros Roca won – in direct competition with Envac – through the offering of the infringing technology.
The 2.8 million is in addition to the compensation already paid by Ros Roca to Envac as a result of the Court’s earlier rulings, which provisionally enforced the first instance findings on patent infringement and damages.
Considering the sum recently established by the Court and the amount already paid by Ros Roca, Envac will ultimately receive compensation of more than 4.2 million Euros. This stands as one of the largest damages awards in Spanish patent litigation history.

Of particular note, about 1.5 million Euros of the total compensation package relates directly to a contract that was deemed subject to the judgment for damages as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s findings in relation to this matter in October last year, on the effectiveness of European patents in Spain. In that ruling, the Supreme Court definitively upheld Hoyng Monegier’s arguments that a European patent designating Spain takes effect from the date of publication of the mention of grant in the European Patent Bulletin, thereby settling one of the most problematic and controversial points of patent law in Spain to date.

Envac was represented by Luis Fernández-Novoa and Laura Cantero.

2013-09-30 Press
Ja 584 Nederlands Hoyng Monegier achieves one of the largest damages awards in Spanish patent litigation history 30/09/2013 Mon, 09/30/2013 (All day) Following a win before the Supreme Court in the patent litigation case pitting Envac against the Spanish company Ros Roca, Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid team has succeeded in obtaining a large award of damages to be paid by Ros Roca to Envac for patent infringement. The damages awarded achieve a new milestone in Spanish patent litigation.

Follow up on our press release of 17 October 2012. Following a win before the Supreme Court in the patent litigation case pitting Envac against the Spanish company Ros Roca, Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid team has succeeded in obtaining a large award of damages to be paid by Ros Roca to Envac for patent infringement. The damages awarded achieve a new milestone in Spanish patent litigation.

Fully accepting the claims made by Hoyng Monegier, Barcelona’s Commercial Court no. 3 ordered that Ros Roca must compensate Envac to the tune of 2.8 million Euros. This sum is the hypothetical royalty fee the defendant would have had to pay to Envac if it had lawfully used the patented technology during five projects; which projects Ros Roca won – in direct competition with Envac – through the offering of the infringing technology.
The 2.8 million is in addition to the compensation already paid by Ros Roca to Envac as a result of the Court’s earlier rulings, which provisionally enforced the first instance findings on patent infringement and damages.
Considering the sum recently established by the Court and the amount already paid by Ros Roca, Envac will ultimately receive compensation of more than 4.2 million Euros. This stands as one of the largest damages awards in Spanish patent litigation history.

Of particular note, about 1.5 million Euros of the total compensation package relates directly to a contract that was deemed subject to the judgment for damages as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s findings in relation to this matter in October last year, on the effectiveness of European patents in Spain. In that ruling, the Supreme Court definitively upheld Hoyng Monegier’s arguments that a European patent designating Spain takes effect from the date of publication of the mention of grant in the European Patent Bulletin, thereby settling one of the most problematic and controversial points of patent law in Spain to date.

Envac was represented by Luis Fernández-Novoa and Laura Cantero.

2013-09-30 Press
Ja 585 Frans Hoyng Monegier achieves one of the largest damages awards in Spanish patent litigation history 30/09/2013 Mon, 09/30/2013 (All day) Following a win before the Supreme Court in the patent litigation case pitting Envac against the Spanish company Ros Roca, Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid team has succeeded in obtaining a large award of damages to be paid by Ros Roca to Envac for patent infringement. The damages awarded achieve a new milestone in Spanish patent litigation.

Follow up on our press release of 17 October 2012. Following a win before the Supreme Court in the patent litigation case pitting Envac against the Spanish company Ros Roca, Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid team has succeeded in obtaining a large award of damages to be paid by Ros Roca to Envac for patent infringement. The damages awarded achieve a new milestone in Spanish patent litigation.

Fully accepting the claims made by Hoyng Monegier, Barcelona’s Commercial Court no. 3 ordered that Ros Roca must compensate Envac to the tune of 2.8 million Euros. This sum is the hypothetical royalty fee the defendant would have had to pay to Envac if it had lawfully used the patented technology during five projects; which projects Ros Roca won – in direct competition with Envac – through the offering of the infringing technology.
The 2.8 million is in addition to the compensation already paid by Ros Roca to Envac as a result of the Court’s earlier rulings, which provisionally enforced the first instance findings on patent infringement and damages.
Considering the sum recently established by the Court and the amount already paid by Ros Roca, Envac will ultimately receive compensation of more than 4.2 million Euros. This stands as one of the largest damages awards in Spanish patent litigation history.

Of particular note, about 1.5 million Euros of the total compensation package relates directly to a contract that was deemed subject to the judgment for damages as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s findings in relation to this matter in October last year, on the effectiveness of European patents in Spain. In that ruling, the Supreme Court definitively upheld Hoyng Monegier’s arguments that a European patent designating Spain takes effect from the date of publication of the mention of grant in the European Patent Bulletin, thereby settling one of the most problematic and controversial points of patent law in Spain to date.

Envac was represented by Luis Fernández-Novoa and Laura Cantero.

2013-09-30 Press
Ja 586 Spaans Hoyng Monegier obtiene una de las mayores indemnizaciones por daños en la historia judicial Española en materia de patentes. 30/09/2013 Mon, 09/30/2013 (All day) Tras la sentencia favorable del Tribunal Supremo lograda en representación de Envac en el pleito de patentes seguido contra la compañía española Ros Roca, el equipo de Hoyng Monegier en Madrid ha conseguido un nuevo hito en el posterior procedimiento relacionado iniciado para la liquidación y ejecución de la suma definitiva con la que Ros Roca habrá de compensar a Envac por los daños y perjuicios causados a resultas de su confirmada infracción de patente.

Relacionado con la Nota de Prensa de 17 de octubre de 2012 aquí.

Tras la sentencia favorable del Tribunal Supremo lograda en representación de Envac en el pleito de patentes seguido contra la compañía española Ros Roca, el equipo de Hoyng Monegier en Madrid ha conseguido un nuevo hito en el posterior procedimiento relacionado iniciado para la liquidación y ejecución de la suma definitiva con la que Ros Roca habrá de compensar a Envac por los daños y perjuicios causados a resultas de su confirmada infracción de patente.
Así, el Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.º 3 de Barcelona ha resuelto recientemente, acogiendo completamente la reclamación formulada por Hoyng Monegier, que Ros Roca deberá indemnizar a Envac en cuantía de más de 2,8 millones de Euros, como regalía hipotética que la demandada debería haber abonado a Envac por utilizar lícitamente la tecnología patentada en los cinco proyectos que fueron adjudicados a Ros Roca, en directa competencia con Envac, gracias al ofrecimiento de tecnología infractora.

La suma indicada lo es en añadidura a la cantidad que Ros Roca ya ha tenido que pagar a Envac como consecuencia de los previos dictados del Juzgado en el procedimiento instado en su día para ejecutar provisionalmente la sentencia favorable emitida en la primera instancia, declarando la existencia de infracción de patente y condenando al resarcimiento de los daños, entre otros pronunciamientos.
Todo ello determina que el montante total de la indemnización por daños y perjuicios con la que Envac será resarcida en última instancia asciende a más de 4,2 millones de Euros, considerando tanto la cifra recientemente establecida por el Juzgado como el importe ya satisfecho por Ros Roca. Se erige ésta en una de las más elevadas indemnizaciones por daños y perjuicios que se conocen en la historia judicial española en materia de patentes.

Como dato a destacar, de esa cifra total, aproximadamente 1,5 millones de Euros se derivan de un contrato que finalmente se entendió afecto a la condena por daños y perjuicios como consecuencia de los pronunciamientos del Tribunal Supremo en octubre del año pasado, en el marco de este procedimiento, sobre la efectividad de las patentes europeas en España. En su sentencia del pasado año, el Tribunal Supremo acogió definitivamente la argumentación de Hoyng Monegier clarificando que una patente europea que designa a España produce efectos en su territorio desde la publicación de la mención de concesión en el Boletín Europeo de Patentes, esclareciendo así una de las cuestiones jurídicas más conflictivas y controvertidas del Derecho español de patentes hasta entonces.

Envac ha sido representada por Luis Fernández-Novoa y Laura Cantero.

 

2013-09-30 Press
Ja 587 Engels Appeal victory for Leroy Merlin in copyright infringement dispute 1 October 2013 Tue, 10/01/2013 (All day) Hoyng Monegier has succeeded in representing Leroy Merlin in appeal stage, in a copyright and breach of advertising contract litigation, initially brought by Tapsa (currently Tapsa Y&R), the advertising agency formerly working with the client. The firm’s Spanish team has attained for Leroy Merlin the total revocation of the unfavorable judgment which had been rendered in first instance.

Hoyng Monegier has succeeded in representing Leroy Merlin in appeal stage, in a copyright and breach of advertising contract litigation, initially brought by Tapsa (currently Tapsa Y&R), the advertising agency formerly working with the client. The firm’s Spanish team has attained for Leroy Merlin the total revocation of the unfavorable judgment which had been rendered in first instance.
Tapsa brought legal actions against Leroy Merlin claiming ownership of copyright over the representation of a character created for a certain press advertising campaign, and the alleged copyright infringement (and subsidiary breach of advertising contract) that Leroy Merlin would have committed by using a three-dimensional version of that character in some TV promos after the termination of contractual relationship between the parties. In first instance, the Court declared the existence of copyright infringement and ordered Leroy Merlin to pay the claimed damages.
After the corresponding appeal by Leroy Merlin, the Court of Appeals in Madrid, in a decision served on 30 September 2013, overturned that first instance judgment and accepted in full Leroy Merlin’s position with regards to the ownership of copyright and the absence of copyright infringement.

Lining with the arguments defended by our lawyers in interpreting the advertising contract between the parties, the Court of Appeals now understands that the exploitation rights over the work (consisting of the character in dispute) were transferred to Leroy Merlin when Tapsa was paid the related agreed remuneration, at the time of releasing the press campaign in which that character was first used. The Court considers that the subsequent use of a 3D-version of the character in TV promos was hence covered by the transferred rights to transform the work and communicate it to the public envisaged in the contract. It is therefore concluded that Leroy Merlin was entitled thereunder to use the work in any form of exploitation (TV) other than the one giving rise to the transfer of rights (press).

The adverse party had defended a much more restrictive construction of the contract, pursuant to which exploitation rights had only been transferred to use the character in the press, so that additional remuneration was required for Leroy Merlin to be entitled to exploit the work by other means. An interpretation which the Court of Appeals now deems erroneous in light of the advertising contract.

In addition to Leroy Merlin being discharged from the alleged copyright infringement, the decision by the Court of Appeals implies that Tapsa shall refund the amount which Leroy Merlin has already paid as damages after the provisional enforcement of the first instance judgment, now revoked. The Court of Appeals also orders Tapsa to pay the costs of the first instance stage of the proceedings, due to the dismissal of its lawsuit.

Jose Antonio Sanmartín and Laura Cantero acted for Leroy Merlin.

2013-10-01 Press
Ja 588 Nederlands Appeal victory for Leroy Merlin in copyright infringement dispute 1 October 2013 Tue, 10/01/2013 (All day) Hoyng Monegier has succeeded in representing Leroy Merlin in appeal stage, in a copyright and breach of advertising contract litigation, initially brought by Tapsa (currently Tapsa Y&R), the advertising agency formerly working with the client. The firm’s Spanish team has attained for Leroy Merlin the total revocation of the unfavorable judgment which had been rendered in first instance.

Hoyng Monegier has succeeded in representing Leroy Merlin in appeal stage, in a copyright and breach of advertising contract litigation, initially brought by Tapsa (currently Tapsa Y&R), the advertising agency formerly working with the client. The firm’s Spanish team has attained for Leroy Merlin the total revocation of the unfavorable judgment which had been rendered in first instance.
Tapsa brought legal actions against Leroy Merlin claiming ownership of copyright over the representation of a character created for a certain press advertising campaign, and the alleged copyright infringement (and subsidiary breach of advertising contract) that Leroy Merlin would have committed by using a three-dimensional version of that character in some TV promos after the termination of contractual relationship between the parties. In first instance, the Court declared the existence of copyright infringement and ordered Leroy Merlin to pay the claimed damages.
After the corresponding appeal by Leroy Merlin, the Court of Appeals in Madrid, in a decision served on 30 September 2013, has overturned that first instance judgment and accepted in full Leroy Merlin’s position with regards to the ownership of copyright and the absence of copyright infringement.

Lining with the arguments defended by our lawyers in interpreting the advertising contract between the parties, the Court of Appeals now understands that the exploitation rights over the work (consisting of the character in dispute) were transferred to Leroy Merlin when Tapsa was paid the related agreed remuneration, at the time of releasing the press campaign in which that character was first used. The Court considers that the subsequent use of a 3D-version of the character in TV promos was hence covered by the transferred rights to transform the work and communicate it to the public envisaged in the contract. It is therefore concluded that Leroy Merlin was entitled thereunder to use the work in any form of exploitation (TV) other than the one giving rise to the transfer of rights (press).

The adverse party had defended a much more restrictive construction of the contract, pursuant to which exploitation rights had only been transferred to use the character in the press, so that additional remuneration was required for Leroy Merlin to be entitled to exploit the work by other means. An interpretation which the Court of Appeals now deems erroneous in light of the advertising contract.
In addition to Leroy Merlin being discharged from the alleged copyright infringement, the decision by the Court of Appeals implies that Tapsa shall refund the amount which Leroy Merlin has already paid as damages after the provisional enforcement of the first instance judgment, now revoked. The Court of Appeals also orders Tapsa to pay the costs of the first instance stage of the proceedings, due to the dismissal of its lawsuit.

Jose Antonio Sanmartín and Laura Cantero acted for Leroy Merlin.

2013-10-01 Press
Ja 589 Frans Appeal victory for Leroy Merlin in copyright infringement dispute 1 October 2013 Tue, 10/01/2013 (All day) Hoyng Monegier has succeeded in representing Leroy Merlin in appeal stage, in a copyright and breach of advertising contract litigation, initially brought by Tapsa (currently Tapsa Y&R), the advertising agency formerly working with the client. The firm’s Spanish team has attained for Leroy Merlin the total revocation of the unfavorable judgment which had been rendered in first instance.

Hoyng Monegier has succeeded in representing Leroy Merlin in appeal stage, in a copyright and breach of advertising contract litigation, initially brought by Tapsa (currently Tapsa Y&R), the advertising agency formerly working with the client. The firm’s Spanish team has attained for Leroy Merlin the total revocation of the unfavorable judgment which had been rendered in first instance.
Tapsa brought legal actions against Leroy Merlin claiming ownership of copyright over the representation of a character created for a certain press advertising campaign, and the alleged copyright infringement (and subsidiary breach of advertising contract) that Leroy Merlin would have committed by using a three-dimensional version of that character in some TV promos after the termination of contractual relationship between the parties. In first instance, the Court declared the existence of copyright infringement and ordered Leroy Merlin to pay the claimed damages.
After the corresponding appeal by Leroy Merlin, the Court of Appeals in Madrid, in a decision served on 30 September 2013, has overturned that first instance judgment and accepted in full Leroy Merlin’s position with regards to the ownership of copyright and the absence of copyright infringement.

Lining with the arguments defended by our lawyers in interpreting the advertising contract between the parties, the Court of Appeals now understands that the exploitation rights over the work (consisting of the character in dispute) were transferred to Leroy Merlin when Tapsa was paid the related agreed remuneration, at the time of releasing the press campaign in which that character was first used. The Court considers that the subsequent use of a 3D-version of the character in TV promos was hence covered by the transferred rights to transform the work and communicate it to the public envisaged in the contract. It is therefore concluded that Leroy Merlin was entitled thereunder to use the work in any form of exploitation (TV) other than the one giving rise to the transfer of rights (press).

The adverse party had defended a much more restrictive construction of the contract, pursuant to which exploitation rights had only been transferred to use the character in the press, so that additional remuneration was required for Leroy Merlin to be entitled to exploit the work by other means. An interpretation which the Court of Appeals now deems erroneous in light of the advertising contract.
In addition to Leroy Merlin being discharged from the alleged copyright infringement, the decision by the Court of Appeals implies that Tapsa shall refund the amount which Leroy Merlin has already paid as damages after the provisional enforcement of the first instance judgment, now revoked. The Court of Appeals also orders Tapsa to pay the costs of the first instance stage of the proceedings, due to the dismissal of its lawsuit.

Jose Antonio Sanmartín and Laura Cantero acted for Leroy Merlin.

 

 

2013-10-01 Press
Ja 590 Spaans Victoria en apelación para Leroy Merlin en un pleito por infracción de derechos de propiedad intelectual 1 October 2013 Tue, 10/01/2013 (All day) Hoyng Monegier se ha impuesto representando a Leroy Merlin en la apelación de un procedimiento por infracción de derechos de propiedad intelectual e incumplimiento de contrato publicitario promovido inicialmente por Tapsa (en la actualidad, Tapsa Y&R), la agencia de publicidad con la que colaboraba en el pasado nuestro cliente. Nuestro equipo en Madrid ha logrado para Leroy Merlin la plena revocación de la sentencia desfavorable de primera instancia.

Hoyng Monegier se ha impuesto representando a Leroy Merlin en la apelación de un procedimiento por infracción de derechos de propiedad intelectual e incumplimiento de contrato publicitario promovido inicialmente por Tapsa (en la actualidad, Tapsa Y&R), la agencia de publicidad con la que colaboraba en el pasado nuestro cliente. Nuestro equipo en Madrid ha logrado para Leroy Merlin la plena revocación de la sentencia desfavorable de primera instancia.

Tapsa interpuso acciones legales contra Leroy Merlin reclamando la titularidad de los derechos de propiedad intelectual sobre un personaje creado para una campaña publicitaria en prensa y denunciando la supuesta violación de tales derechos (y, subsidiariamente, el incumplimiento del contrato publicitario) que habría cometido Leroy Merlin al utilizar una versión tridimensional de dicho personaje en unos spots televisivos tras finalizar la relación contractual que había existido entre las partes. En primera instancia el Juzgado declaró la existencia de infracción condenando asimismo a Leroy Merlin al resarcimiento de los daños y perjuicios.
Tras recurrir Leroy Merlin la decisión, la Audiencia Provincial de Madrid, mediante resolución notificada el 30 de septiembre de 2013, ha revocado la sentencia de primera instancia y admitido de pleno la línea argumentativa de Leroy Merlin en relación con la titularidad de los derechos de propiedad intelectual y la ausencia de infracción.

Alineándose con la tesis defendida por nuestros abogados al interpretar el contrato publicitario que rigió la relación entre las partes, la Audiencia Provincial ha considerado que se produjo la cesión de los derechos de explotación sobre la obra (consistente en el controvertido personaje) a favor de Leroy Merlin en el momento en el que Tapsa percibió la remuneración pactada por la realización de la campaña de prensa en la que aquel personaje fue utilizado por vez primera. Entiende el Tribunal, por tanto, que el posterior uso de una versión tridimensional del personaje en spots televisivos se encontraba amparado por los derechos de transformación y comunicación pública de la obra cedidos conforme al contrato. Se concluye en consecuencia que Leroy Merlin estaba facultada en su virtud para explotar la obra en una modalidad de explotación (televisión) distinta a la que dio origen a la cesión de derechos (prensa).

La parte contraria había defendido una interpretación mucho más restrictiva del contrato conforme a la cual sólo se habrían cedido los derechos de explotación para hacer uso del personaje en prensa, entendiendo que Leroy Merlin debía haber satisfecho una remuneración adicional para poder explotar la obra en otros medios. Interpretación que la Audiencia Provincial ha considerado errónea a la luz del contrato publicitario.

Además de absolver a Leroy Merlin, se colige del fallo de la Audiencia Provincial que Tapsa deberá reintegrar a Leroy Merlin la suma que ésta ya abonó en su día en concepto de daños y perjuicios tras la ejecución provisional de la sentencia de primera instancia, ahora revocada. Asimismo, la Audiencia condena a Tapsa al pago de las costas causadas en aquella primera instancia dada la desestimación de su demanda.

Jose Antonio Sanmartín y Laura Cantero han representado a Leroy Merlin en este asunto.

 

2013-10-01 Press
Ja 593 Hoyng Monegier contributes to Kluwer IP Law Smart Charts 16 October 2013 Tue, 10/15/2013 - 02:00 Hoyng Monegier recently edited an overview on copyright law in the Netherlands for Kluwer.

Hoyng Monegier recently edited an overview on copyright law in the Netherlands for Kluwer. This edition, written by Laura Fresco, Roeland Grijpink and Jos Klaus, was  published online in September as a part of Kluwer’s Copyright Smart Charts (http://www.kluweriplaw.com/, subscription only). It consists of a concise topic-by-topic commentary on all aspects of Dutch copyright law, with references to legal texts and relevant national and EU case law.

2013-10-16 Press
Ja 599 Divisionals and the European Patent Convention 23 October 2013 Wed, 10/23/2013 (All day) As of April 1st 2014 patent applicants will have the right to file divisional applications from pending European patent applications unfettered by the 24-month time limit currently imposed. A (not yet disclosed) fee will be set for the filing of so-called second generation divisional applications (divisional applications of divisional applications).

As of April 1st 2014 patent applicants will have the right to file divisional applications from pending European patent applications unfettered by the 24-month time limit currently imposed. A (not yet disclosed) fee will be set for the filing of so-called second generation divisional applications (divisional applications of divisional applications).

Before and after April 1st 2014
Four years after entering into force, the EPC rule limiting the period allowed for filing divisional European patent applications will be changed again. Until April 1st 2014 a divisional application can only be filed in relation to a pending earlier application within two years from the Examining Division issuing either ‘a first communication’ or a non-unity objection (current Rule 36(1)EPC).
After April 1st 2014 the only requirement for filing a divisional European patent application will be that the parent European patent application is pending. Under the new rule, one will basically be able to file a divisional up until the grant of the European patent or up until the lapse of the patent application (deemed withdrawn / refused / lapse of appeal period).

Divisional applications as strategic instruments
Divisional applications provide the applicant with a means to protect a second/third or further invention disclosed in one and the same patent application. First grant of the main invention is pursued and subsequently a second invention can become subject of the claims of the divisional application.
The first/second/further invention can be intentionally or unintentionally disclosed in the application. Two separate embodiments can fall within a scope of an ‘umbrella’ claim providing unity to the invention. If however the umbrella is examined and proves to lack novelty or inventive step over the prior art, the applicant is forced to limit the claim to one of the embodiments. The other embodiment can be protected with a divisional patent application.
The option of filing divisional applications can be used for other purposes too. Divisional applications can, for example, be used as a tool to prolong the pendency of subject-matter before the Office. Applicants can also use a divisional application as an instrument to achieve 'duplication' of proceedings by filing an (identical) divisional application. Such tactics allow applicants to have the same technical content discussed again even when the outcome of the proceedings in the parent application was negative. This trend was considered to be detrimental to legal certainty for third parties.
As currently the Examination of European patent applications can take up several years, second and later generation divisionals can be pending 15-20 years from filing.

Consequences
Under the new Rule, you, but also your competitors, will have more strategic options. Legal uncertainty for third parties will increase. The amendment will have direct influence on (pre-)litigation patent advices.
It may also be wise to consider that for some pending cases that are moving towards grant prior to 1 April 2014, a delay to grant beyond that date could re-open the opportunity for you to file a divisional application for any of the strategic reasons mentioned above. Although for the latter, this will depend upon the transition provisions, which are still awaited.

Please consult your Hoyng Monegier contact to find out the detailed consequences for your business.

2013-10-23 Press
Ja 610 Willem Hoyng celebrates double jubilee 4 November 2013 Mon, 11/04/2013 (All day) On 1 November, Willem Hoyng celebrated his double jubilee with an IP Seminar in Amsterdam. The seminar was held in celebration of Willem’s 40th anniversary as an IP lawyer and his 25th anniversary as an IP professor at Tilburg University.

On 1 November,  Willem Hoyng celebrated his double jubilee with an IP Seminar in Amsterdam. The seminar was held in celebration of Willem’s 40th anniversary as an IP lawyer and his 25th anniversary as an IP professor at Tilburg University. During the seminar, which was attended by a large audience consisting of IP professionals throughout the world, former Advocate General at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Toon Huydecoper spoke about the scope of patent protection. Professor Vriesendorp addressed Willem on behalf of Tilburg University and professor Charles Gielen (University of Groningen and NautaDutilh) spoke about Trade dress after Burberry.

The seminar was closed with the first session of the Unified Patent Court. The Court consisted of Rian Kalden (Court of Appeal The Hague) Sir Robin Jacob (University College London) and Klaus Grabinski (Bundesgerichtshof). Under the direction of Benoît Strowel (Hoyng Monegier), who acted as President of the General Court, litigators Henry Carr QC (11 South Square) and Peter Hendrick (Freshfields  Bruckhaus Deringer) re-litigated the famous Windsurfer case.

During the day, Willem Hoyng was presented a liber amicorum by Supreme Court judge Ernst Numann. Contributors to this book include Pierre Véron, Kevin Mooney, Tim Powell, Thomas Reimann and Robert van Peurseum and many others. 

2013-11-12 Press
Ja 611 (Another) cross-border victory for G-Star RAW against H&M 15 November 2013 Fri, 11/15/2013 (All day) On 13 November 2013, the The Hague District Court awarded all G-Star RAW’s claims in an ongoing cross-border trademark infringement case against the international clothing company H&M.

On 13 November 2013, the The Hague District Court awarded all G-Star RAW’s claims in an ongoing cross-border trademark infringement case against the international clothing company H&M. This is G-Star’s third win in a row against H&M.
 
Like the district court and appeal court in their earlier decisions in preliminary injunction proceedings [here and here], the district court in proceedings on the merits held that the international clothing company H&M infringes on the trademark rights of the popular Dutch fashion designer with its “RAW Beat Experience” clothing in the meaning of article 9(1)(c) of the Community Trademark Regulation.  According to the court the risk of confusion was also evidenced by the market survey carried out on behalf of G-Star.
 
G-Star not only  obtained an EU wide injunction against H&M, but H&M was also ordered to provide G-Star with a full accountants report on the infringement and generated profits and destroy all the infringing goods subject to high penalty sums. Furthermore, the court held that H&M is liable for damages and that it has to compensate G-Star’s full procedural costs.
 
The EU wide measures were imposed both on the local Dutch H&M company as well as on the Swedish company which heads the H&M group and owns H&M’s website and trademarks. H&M Sweden’s contestation of the jurisdiction of the Dutch judge was dismissed in an earlier interim decision of the The Hague District Court [here].

A copy of the judgment (in Dutch) can be found [here].

2013-11-18 Press
Ja 612 Live webinar 29 November 2013 Fri, 11/29/2013 (All day) On 29 November, Laura Fresco and Geert Theuws will participate in a live webinar on recent changes in IP at the Academie voor Rechtspraktijk/Magna Charta from 2 to 5 pm.

On 29 November, Laura Fresco and Geert Theuws will participate in a live webinar on recent changes in IP at the Academie voor Rechtspraktijk/Magna Charta  from 2 to 5 pm.

2013-11-18 Events
Ja 624 Hoyng Monegier to chair several sessions at IP summit 9 -11 December 2013 Paris, France Mon, 12/09/2013 (All day) Premier Cercle will be organising its IP summit in Paris on 9,10 and 11 December.

Premier Cercle's IP Summit will cover three days. The first two days will be dedicated to patents, the third day to trademarks with a special focus on the luxury industry. Hoyng Monegier will chair different sessions and will set up a mock trial for the future UPC.

 

For more information go to: http://www.premiercercle.com/sites/ipsummit/2013/paris2013/

2013-12-03 Events
Ja 625 EUCJ condemns “scraping” of databases 20 December 2013 Fri, 12/20/2013 (All day) In a landmark ruling, Europe’s highest court: the EUCJ, yesterday banned so called “dedicated meta search engines”.

In a landmark ruling, Europe’s highest court: the EUCJ, yesterday banned so called “dedicated meta search engines”.
Gaspedaal.nl, a venture of Dutch publisher De Telegraaf, is a dedicated meta search engine that searches through used car advertisements on a number of different Dutch used car websites such as AutoTrack.nl, AutoTrader.nl and AutoScout24.nl. If the Gaspedaal user searches for a particular type of car GasPedaal translates the query into the format of the search engine of these websites. GasPedaal then retrieves data directly, i.e. in "real time", from these websites and displays the combined search results in its own layout to the user. Every day GasPedaal carries out approximately 100,000 searches on the AutoTrack website in response to queries.
AutoTrack, a venture of Dutch/Belgian publisher De Persgroep, filed a lawsuit in 2008 before the District Court of The Hague. The Court banned the "scraping" of AutoTrack because GasPedaal infringed the database rights of AutoTrack. De Telegraaf appealed the judgment and the Hague Court of Appeal referred nine "questions of interpretation" to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

In yesterday’s judgment the EUCJ held that GasPedaal’s dedicated meta search infringes Wegener’s database rights as it deprives AutoTrack of its revenues. The court ruled:
As the end user no longer has any need to proceed via the database site’s homepage and search form, it is possible that the maker of that database will generate less income from the advertising displayed on that homepage or on the search form, especially to the extent that it might seem more profitable for operators wishing to place advertisements online to do so on the website of the dedicated meta search engine, rather than on one of the database sites covered by that meta engine. As regards, furthermore, database sites displaying advertising, sellers – aware that, with the dedicated meta search engine, searches will be made simultaneously in several databases and duplications displayed – may start placing their advertisements on only one database site at a time, so that the database sites would become less extensive and therefore less attractive.”
According to the court, this practice “comes close to the manufacture of a parasitical competing product.”
Thus GasPedaal “re-utilizes” the whole or a substantial part of AutoTrack’s database and hence infringes AutoTrack’s database rights.
The case will now return to the Hague Court of Appeal, which is expected to render its final judgment at some point in the summer.

AutoTrack (De Persgroep) is represented by Joris van Manen of Hoyng Monegier in Amsterdam.

Van Manen comments: "This ruling of the highest EU court is of the utmost importance for the digital publishing industry. It is a strong incentive to develop quality data products without having to fear that these products will immediately be parasited. It again is an important step in the maturation of the internet.”

 

Click here to read the court's decision.

2013-12-20 Press
Ja 626 WIPR: Round up of the biggest talking points of this year's Marques trademark conference 20 december 2013 Fri, 12/20/2013 (All day) World Intellectual Property Review published a round up of some of the biggest talking points of this year's Marques conference, held in Monaco.

World Intellectual Property Review gives a round of some of the biggest talking points of this year's Marques conference. Marlou van de Braak's session on "Crowdsourcing and Social Media" is considered as this year's highlight by WIPR. Click here to view the article.

2013-12-20 Press
Ja 627 Dutch Supreme Court confirms the rights in the famous vodka brands “Stolichnaya” and “Moskovskaya” belong to the Russian Federation. 20 December 2013 Fri, 12/20/2013 (All day) Today the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that the rights in the world famous vodka brands “Stolichnaya” and “Moskovskaya” belong to the Russian Federation.

Today the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that the rights in the world famous vodka brands “Stolichnaya” and “Moskovskaya” belong to the Russian Federation.
The legal battle between the Russian Federation and Spirits, the Dutch company owned by  Russian oligarch Yuri Shefler, has been on-going for some 10 years. Mr. Shefler is accused of having illegally obtained the rights in the leading vodka brands “Stolichnaya” and ”Moskovskaya” in the turbulent years following the demise of the USSR. In its judgement of 24 July 2012 the Court of Appeal ruled that Shefler did not operate in good faith in obtaining these valuable vodka trademarks. According to the Court of Appeal, Spirits is not the rightful owner of the “Stolichnaya” and “Moskovskaya” trademarks. The rights to these world leading vodka brands belong to the Russian Federation.

Today, the Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed the Appeal Courts judgment. As the decision of the Supreme Court can not be challenged it is now final that Stolichnaya belongs to the  Russian Federation.
Spirits has been licensing the sale of “Stolichnaya” and “Moskovskaya” vodka worldwide since the mid 1990’s. Spirits argued that it had rightfully acquired the trademarks from the Russian State company which originally owned the trademark registrations after the company had been "privatised". Because of the Supreme Courts ruling it is now final that no valid privatisation of the State company has taken place and that the marks thus remained with the Russian State. As the trademarks have remained with the Russian Federation it is entitled to prohibit the sale of “Stolichnaya” and” Moskovskaya” vodka by Spirits.
Finally, Spirits is not allowed to use the words "Russian Vodka" or "Made in Russia" on its bottles. This denomination is misleading as the product is not manufactured by Spirits in Russia.

The matter was handled on behalf of the Russian State by Joris van Manen and Laura Fresco. Van Manen points out that the decision has world wide effect as important issues of Russian law have been resolved by the court. Also Spirits is a Dutch company. Dutch law is applicable to the purchase of the trademarks by this company.

2013-12-20 Press
Ja 628 Round table: Obtention d’une interdiction dans plusieurs pays par le biais d’une seule action : l’injonction transfrontalière 24 January 2014 Renaissance Hotel, Paris Fri, 01/24/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier's Paris office organises a round table on cross-border litigation.

Hoyng Monegier's Paris office organises a round table on cross-border litigation on Friday 24 January. If you wish to register; send an email to paris@hoyngmonegier.com

Venue: Renaissance Hotel, 38 avenue Wagram, Paris. The seminar will be held in French.

2013-12-30 Events
Ja 629 Pharma and Biotech Patent Litigation Conference 28-29 January 2014 Radisson BLU Hotel in Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tue, 01/28/2014 (All day) Willem Hoyng will be a panel member at the Pharma and Biotech Patent Litigation Conference. The panel deals will discuss the Unified Patent Court. The venue for the conference is the Radisson BLU Hotel in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2014-01-07 Events
Ja 630 26th Annual DIA EuroMeeting 25-27 March 2014 Vienna, Austria Tue, 03/25/2014 (All day) Carla Schoonderbeek will be the Session Chair on 27 March 2014 for the session “New active substances and known active substances – designation, implications."

Carla Schoonderbeek will be the Session Chair on 27 March 2014 for the session “New active substances and known active substances – designation, implications." For more information: http://www.diahome.org/en-GB/Flagship-Meetings/EuroMeeting2014.aspx

2014-01-16 Events
Ja 631 Victory for MBG International Premium Brands in trademark infringement litigation 27 January 2014 Mon, 01/27/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid Office successfully represented MBG International Premium Brands (“MBG”), one of the main players of the German beverages industry, in litigation brought against its former distributor in Spain, Río Marketing.

Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid Office successfully represented MBG International Premium Brands (“MBG”), one of the main players of the German beverages industry, in litigation brought against its former distributor in Spain, Río Marketing, on the grounds of the latter’s violation of two Community trademarks registered by MBG, “EFFECT”, which give name to MBG’s flagship energy drink product. After the termination of the commercial relationship between the parties, Rio Marketing launched its own energy drink into the Spanish market, under the brand name “IMPACT”. Its representation was highly similar to MBG’s “EFFECT” figurative trademarks registered with the EUIPO, thereby giving rise to the launching of legal actions on the merits of trademark infringement.

In line with MBG’s claims, Community Trademark Court no. 2 of Alicante, in the Judgment handed down, confirmed that the adverse party’s “IMPACT” sign produced a clear risk of confusion with MBG’s earlier “EFFECT” trademarks, in light of the high degree of similarity which existed between the disputed signs in terms of the overall impression, both in the word element (the meanings being deemed identical) and in the graphic component (“there exists a clear reproduction of the combination of colors and elements, similarly arranged”). The differences which existed between the signs were deemed insufficient by the Court to dilute risk of confusion, given the significant relevance of existing matches.

As a result, the Court ordered the defendant to cease and refrain from exploiting the “IMPACT” energy drink product within the EU, to withdraw and destroy any such products and any packaging and advertising material, to compensate MBG for damages and investigation expenses, to publish the Court’s ruling, and to pay the legal costs of the proceedings.
The Judgment is subject to appeal.


Álvaro Velázquez and Laura Cantero acted for MBG in this matter.

2014-01-28 Press
Ja 632 Madonna wins plagiarism case 4 February 2014 Tue, 02/04/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier successfully represented Madonna’s music publishers Warner Chappell, EMI and Sony ATV in a plagiarism case.

Hoyng Monegier successfully represented Madonna’s music publishers Warner Chappell, EMI and Sony ATV in a plagiarism case. Belgian songwriter Salvatore Acquaviva filed a suit against the megastar, claiming that her hit, “Frozen” (1998), plagiarized parts of his song, "Ma Vie Fout L'camp”(1993). In 2005, a judge ruled in favour of Mr Acquaviva instructing Madonna to withdraw the song from sales and ordering that the song no longer be broadcast on TV or radio. Yesterday, the Court of Appeal of Mons overturned the first instance judgment, ruling that there was no infringement. The notes that were alleged to have been copied (the first notes of Frozen) did not attract copyright because they simply were not original to Mr. Acquaviva and were already used in other songs.

Warner Chappell, EMI and Sony ATV were represented by Fabienne Brison and Frédéric Lejeune.

2014-02-04 Copyright
Ja 632 Madonna wins plagiarism case 4 February 2014 Tue, 02/04/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier successfully represented Madonna’s music publishers Warner Chappell, EMI and Sony ATV in a plagiarism case.

Hoyng Monegier successfully represented Madonna’s music publishers Warner Chappell, EMI and Sony ATV in a plagiarism case. Belgian songwriter Salvatore Acquaviva filed a suit against the megastar, claiming that her hit, “Frozen” (1998), plagiarized parts of his song, "Ma Vie Fout L'camp”(1993). In 2005, a judge ruled in favour of Mr Acquaviva instructing Madonna to withdraw the song from sales and ordering that the song no longer be broadcast on TV or radio. Yesterday, the Court of Appeal of Mons overturned the first instance judgment, ruling that there was no infringement. The notes that were alleged to have been copied (the first notes of Frozen) did not attract copyright because they simply were not original to Mr. Acquaviva and were already used in other songs.

Warner Chappell, EMI and Sony ATV were represented by Fabienne Brison and Frédéric Lejeune.

2014-02-04 Press
Ja 633 Free rein for links to freely accessible information 13 February 2014 Thu, 02/13/2014 (All day) The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has rendered its decision in the Svensson case (C 466/12). The decision provides some much-needed clarity regarding hyperlinking to copyrighted works.

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has rendered its decision in the Svensson case (C 466/12). The decision provides some much-needed clarity regarding hyperlinking to copyrighted works.

According to the court, linking is an act of communication to a public. However, linking to freely accessible information on a website does not amount to a communication to a “new” public, and thus cannot be prohibited by the copyright owner. Whether the link is a “framed link” makes no difference. Alternatively, if the works are not freely accessible, a link thereto may amount to a communication to a new public, which the copyright owner can prohibit.

The facts of the case are as follows. Several Swedish journalists (including Mr Svensson) wrote articles. These were published and made freely accessible on the website of the newspaper Göteborgs-Posten.
The Swedish company Retriever Sverige (“Retriever”) runs a website and offers its clients clickable links (hyperlinks) to articles that are published on other websites. In this vein, Retriever provided links to the articles on Göteborgs-Posten’s website. The journalists had not given permission for these acts and asserted that Retriever Sverige infringed their copyright.

The Swedish Court of Appeal dealing with the case asked the CJEU several questions regarding EU copyright law.

The first three questions focused on the lawfulness of hyperlinking to copyrighted works. Question four dealt with the question of whether Member States could interpret the concept of a “communication to the public” more broadly than prescribed by EU law.
Under EU copyright law, copyright holders have the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works. This right includes the making available of a work in such a way that members of the public may access the work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

The CJEU confirms (in paras. 17-20) that the provision of clickable links to copyright protected works is indeed an “act of communication”, since it is sufficient that the persons forming the public are able to access the works.

The CJEU then deals with the concept of “communication to the public”. In the Swedish case, the act of communication concerned the same works and the same mode of communication (via the Internet) as the initial communication. In such circumstances it is required (for copyright infringement) that the communication is “directed at a new public” (in para. 24). According to the CJEU, a public is only a new public when it is a public “that was not taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial communication”.
Since the initial communication was freely accessible for all Internet users, the CJEU holds that there is no new public and that Retriever did not require permission from the copyright holders (paras. 21-27). The CJEU adds (paras. 29-30) that it is irrelevant whether the work is presented in such a way that it is not clear to a visitor whether the article is published by another site (e.g. framed linking).

The situation differs, however, if a work is initially freely accessible, but subsequently no longer available, or only available to a restricted public. If a clickable link on a website then makes it possible to gain access to a work on another website where it is no longer available or only to a restricted public, such a link must be seen as an “intervention” and all users of the linking website “must be deemed to be a new public, which was not taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorized the initial communication”. Under such circumstances the linking website will require authorization from the copyright holders.

Finally, the CJEU holds that Member States cannot give wider protection to copyright holders by interpreting the concept of communication to the public such that it includes a wider range of activities than those mentioned in article 3(1) of directive 2001/29/EC.

 

Click here to read the decision.

 

2014-02-13 Press
Ja 633 Free rein for links to freely accessible information 13 February 2014 Thu, 02/13/2014 (All day) The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has rendered its decision in the Svensson case (C 466/12). The decision provides some much-needed clarity regarding hyperlinking to copyrighted works.

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has rendered its decision in the Svensson case (C 466/12). The decision provides some much-needed clarity regarding hyperlinking to copyrighted works.

According to the court, linking is an act of communication to a public. However, linking to freely accessible information on a website does not amount to a communication to a “new” public, and thus cannot be prohibited by the copyright owner. Whether the link is a “framed link” makes no difference. Alternatively, if the works are not freely accessible, a link thereto may amount to a communication to a new public, which the copyright owner can prohibit.

The facts of the case are as follows. Several Swedish journalists (including Mr Svensson) wrote articles. These were published and made freely accessible on the website of the newspaper Göteborgs-Posten.
The Swedish company Retriever Sverige (“Retriever”) runs a website and offers its clients clickable links (hyperlinks) to articles that are published on other websites. In this vein, Retriever provided links to the articles on Göteborgs-Posten’s website. The journalists had not given permission for these acts and asserted that Retriever Sverige infringed their copyright.

The Swedish Court of Appeal dealing with the case asked the CJEU several questions regarding EU copyright law.

The first three questions focused on the lawfulness of hyperlinking to copyrighted works. Question four dealt with the question of whether Member States could interpret the concept of a “communication to the public” more broadly than prescribed by EU law.
Under EU copyright law, copyright holders have the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works. This right includes the making available of a work in such a way that members of the public may access the work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

The CJEU confirms (in paras. 17-20) that the provision of clickable links to copyright protected works is indeed an “act of communication”, since it is sufficient that the persons forming the public are able to access the works.

The CJEU then deals with the concept of “communication to the public”. In the Swedish case, the act of communication concerned the same works and the same mode of communication (via the Internet) as the initial communication. In such circumstances it is required (for copyright infringement) that the communication is “directed at a new public” (in para. 24). According to the CJEU, a public is only a new public when it is a public “that was not taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial communication”.
Since the initial communication was freely accessible for all Internet users, the CJEU holds that there is no new public and that Retriever did not require permission from the copyright holders (paras. 21-27). The CJEU adds (paras. 29-30) that it is irrelevant whether the work is presented in such a way that it is not clear to a visitor whether the article is published by another site (e.g. framed linking).

The situation differs, however, if a work is initially freely accessible, but subsequently no longer available, or only available to a restricted public. If a clickable link on a website then makes it possible to gain access to a work on another website where it is no longer available or only to a restricted public, such a link must be seen as an “intervention” and all users of the linking website “must be deemed to be a new public, which was not taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorized the initial communication”. Under such circumstances the linking website will require authorization from the copyright holders.

Finally, the CJEU holds that Member States cannot give wider protection to copyright holders by interpreting the concept of communication to the public such that it includes a wider range of activities than those mentioned in article 3(1) of directive 2001/29/EC.

 

Click here to read the decision.

 

2014-02-13 Copyright
Ja 639 Beneluxvereniging voor Merken-en Modellenrecht 27 March 20114 Oud-Turnhout, Belgium Thu, 03/27/2014 (All day) Willem Hoyng will be speaking at the BMM (Beneluxvereniging voor Merken-en Modellenrecht/Association Benelux pour le droit des Marques et Modèles) spring meeting on 27 March 2014.

Willem Hoyng will be speaking at the BMM (Beneluxvereniging voor Merken-en Modellenrecht/Association Benelux pour le droit des Marques et Modèles) spring meeting on 27 March 2014.

2014-03-03 Events
Ja 640 Brussels office organises its annual "IP Year in Review" 27 March 2014 Brussels, Belgium Thu, 03/27/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier's Brussels office organises its annual "IP Year in Review" on Thursday 27 March from 1 to 5 pm.

Besides covering the latest case law on copyright, trademarks and patents we will bring you up to speed on various hot topics such as:
•    the copyright aspects of hyper-linking on websites
•    IP issues of 3D printing
•    the new Customs Counterfeit Regulation in force as of January 1 last
•    the state of affairs on the Commission’s TM reform initiative
•    the increased protection of Trade Secrets and
•    an update on the Unitary Patent  and the Unified Patent Court

You can register by sending an email to brussels@hoyngmonegier.com

 

2014-03-03 Events
Ja 641 Hoyng Monegier wins three Managing IP Awards 20 March 2014 London Thu, 03/20/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier picked up three awards last night during the 9th edition of Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Awards ceremony at The Dorchester Hotel in London.

Hoyng Monegier picked up three awards last night during the 9th edition of  Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Awards ceremony at The Dorchester Hotel in London:
-          Europe - Patents - IP Firm of the Year Award for 2014
-          Netherlands Contentious IP Firm of the Year' Award for 2014
-          France Contentious IP Firm of the Year Award for 2014 (second year in a row)
It was a good night for Hoyng Monegier, which was also the firm winning the most awards on the night.
The Global Awards recognize leading firms from over 40 jurisdictions worldwide and highlight firms, individuals and companies driving the IP market at an international level.

2014-03-20 Press
Ja 642 Hunter Douglas obtains victory in ADO trade mark case 4 April 2014 Fri, 04/04/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier’s Amsterdam office successfully represented Hunter Douglas c.s. in an important trade mark case against a German competitor.

Hoyng Monegier’s Amsterdam office successfully represented Hunter Douglas c.s. in an important trade mark case against a German competitor. On 3 April 2014, the President of the District Court of The Hague ordered - in expectation of a judgment in appeal proceedings on the merits in Germany - that it is likely that the Dutch and Belgian branches of Hunter Douglas c.s. will be considered the exclusive rights owners or exclusive licensees of the ADO Community Trade Mark in as far as the Benelux territory is concerned. Pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation, these exclusive rights will need to be respected by defendants Zimmer + Rohde c.s., since the defendants had previous knowledge of these exclusive rights.
To avoid irreparable damages to Hunter Douglas, the judge prohibited Zimmer + Rohde c.s. to use the well-known ADO mark in The Netherlands for curtains and similar goods, until the German judge has rendered a final decision in the proceedings on the merits. Defendants may also not falsely claim that Hunter Douglas does not hold exclusive rights to the ADO trade mark in the Benelux, or that Zimmer + Rohde c.s. holds any exclusivity. The orders are reinforced by a 10,000 Euros penalty per day or per time that the defendants do not comply with these orders. Further, Zimmer + Rohde is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

This case is handled by Marlou van de Braak and Jos Klaus of the Amsterdam office of Hoyng Monegier. The Brussels office of Hoyng Monegier is pursuing similar measures for Belgium.

The judgment (in Dutch) is to be found [here].

2014-04-04 Trademarks
Ja 642 Hunter Douglas obtains victory in ADO trade mark case 4 April 2014 Fri, 04/04/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier’s Amsterdam office successfully represented Hunter Douglas c.s. in an important trade mark case against a German competitor.

Hoyng Monegier’s Amsterdam office successfully represented Hunter Douglas c.s. in an important trade mark case against a German competitor. On 3 April 2014, the President of the District Court of The Hague ordered - in expectation of a judgment in appeal proceedings on the merits in Germany - that it is likely that the Dutch and Belgian branches of Hunter Douglas c.s. will be considered the exclusive rights owners or exclusive licensees of the ADO Community Trade Mark in as far as the Benelux territory is concerned. Pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation, these exclusive rights will need to be respected by defendants Zimmer + Rohde c.s., since the defendants had previous knowledge of these exclusive rights.
To avoid irreparable damages to Hunter Douglas, the judge prohibited Zimmer + Rohde c.s. to use the well-known ADO mark in The Netherlands for curtains and similar goods, until the German judge has rendered a final decision in the proceedings on the merits. Defendants may also not falsely claim that Hunter Douglas does not hold exclusive rights to the ADO trade mark in the Benelux, or that Zimmer + Rohde c.s. holds any exclusivity. The orders are reinforced by a 10,000 Euros penalty per day or per time that the defendants do not comply with these orders. Further, Zimmer + Rohde is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

This case is handled by Marlou van de Braak and Jos Klaus of the Amsterdam office of Hoyng Monegier. The Brussels office of Hoyng Monegier is pursuing similar measures for Belgium.

The judgment (in Dutch) is to be found [here].

2014-04-04 Press
Ja 643 Research, development and technology agreements 9 May 2014 Utrecht, The Netherlands Fri, 05/09/2014 (All day) Frank Eijsvogels will lecture about research, development and technology agreements at Xurias on 9 May.

Frank Eijsvogels will lecture about research, development and technology agreements at Xurias on 9 May.

For more information: www.xurias.com

2014-04-08 Events
Ja 644 New Customs Regulation 608/2013 22 May 2014 Den Haag, The Netherlands Thu, 05/22/2014 (All day) Frank Eijsvogels will lecture about the new Customs Regulation 608/2013 at the Dutch AIPPI (Vereniging Intellectuele Eigendom).

On 22 may, Frank Eijsvogels will lecture about the new Customs Regulation 608/2013 at the Dutch AIPPI meeting (Vereniging Intellectuele Eigendom).

 

http://www.aippi.nl/nl/calendar.htm

2014-04-08 Events
Ja 645 Hoyng Monegier obtains another important victory for Imperial Tobacco 10 april 2014 Thu, 04/10/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid Office obtained another important victory for its client IMPERIAL TOBACCO (IT) in the appeal phase of the unfair competition litigation brought against the packaging of a hand rolling tobacco which imitated the getup of its famous brand GOLDEN VIRGINIA in Spain but did not infringe any of IT’s IPRs.

Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid Office has obtained another important victory for its client IMPERIAL TOBACCO (IT) in the appeal phase of the unfair competition litigation brought against the packaging of a hand rolling tobacco which imitated the getup of its famous brand GOLDEN VIRGINIA in Spain but did not infringe any of IT’s IPRs.

On 27 March 2014, the Provincial Court of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, rendered its appeal decision on the proceedings brought by IT and its subsidiary in the Canaries JOHN PLAYER S.A. against the local company ASHIRWADIS VICTORIA, S.L., for the lookalike misleading presentation of the hand rolling tobacco GV-GARDEN VICTORIA. The Provincial Court dismissed the appeal brought by the Company responsible for the presentation against Judgement of 18 May 2012 issued by Commercial Court No. 1 of Las Palmas and granted partially the appeal brought by IT.

The Court upheld the decision of the First Instance Court in what regards the unfair competition, confirming that the packaging of the defendant created a similar whole impression than that of the GOLDEN VIRGINIA product which is appropriate to produce in the average consumer a risk of association with IT’s GOLDEN VIRGINIA brand packs, and further also unfairly taking advantage of IT’s GOLDEN VIRGINIA’s repute and goodwill by using a similar pack which may attract the average consumer interested in a cheaper product but still similar to the prestigious, without any due cause or justification and being easily avoidable with minimum precautions, even if it was considered that it did not mislead consumers.
Accordingly, the Court confirmed the order on the defendant to cease and refrain from using the relevant GARDEN VICTORIA packs, their seizure, withdrawal and destruction, and bear the costs of the publication of the Judgement in major newspapers in the Canaries.
Further, in granting IT’s appeal, the Court revoked the decision of the Commercial Court in what concerned the dismissal of the claim for pecuniary damages, which the First Instance Court had denied on the basis of the different size of the Companies and the lack of relevance of the defendant’s activities for IT’s business, and ordered the defendant to pay IT a compensation for the profits made with the misleading presentation.

Luis Fernández-Novoa and Álvaro Velázquez handled the litigation for Imperial Tobacco.

2014-04-10 Trademarks
Ja 645 Hoyng Monegier obtains another important victory for Imperial Tobacco 10 april 2014 Thu, 04/10/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid Office obtained another important victory for its client IMPERIAL TOBACCO (IT) in the appeal phase of the unfair competition litigation brought against the packaging of a hand rolling tobacco which imitated the getup of its famous brand GOLDEN VIRGINIA in Spain but did not infringe any of IT’s IPRs.

Hoyng Monegier’s Madrid Office has obtained another important victory for its client IMPERIAL TOBACCO (IT) in the appeal phase of the unfair competition litigation brought against the packaging of a hand rolling tobacco which imitated the getup of its famous brand GOLDEN VIRGINIA in Spain but did not infringe any of IT’s IPRs.

On 27 March 2014, the Provincial Court of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, rendered its appeal decision on the proceedings brought by IT and its subsidiary in the Canaries JOHN PLAYER S.A. against the local company ASHIRWADIS VICTORIA, S.L., for the lookalike misleading presentation of the hand rolling tobacco GV-GARDEN VICTORIA. The Provincial Court dismissed the appeal brought by the Company responsible for the presentation against Judgement of 18 May 2012 issued by Commercial Court No. 1 of Las Palmas and granted partially the appeal brought by IT.

The Court upheld the decision of the First Instance Court in what regards the unfair competition, confirming that the packaging of the defendant created a similar whole impression than that of the GOLDEN VIRGINIA product which is appropriate to produce in the average consumer a risk of association with IT’s GOLDEN VIRGINIA brand packs, and further also unfairly taking advantage of IT’s GOLDEN VIRGINIA’s repute and goodwill by using a similar pack which may attract the average consumer interested in a cheaper product but still similar to the prestigious, without any due cause or justification and being easily avoidable with minimum precautions, even if it was considered that it did not mislead consumers.
Accordingly, the Court confirmed the order on the defendant to cease and refrain from using the relevant GARDEN VICTORIA packs, their seizure, withdrawal and destruction, and bear the costs of the publication of the Judgement in major newspapers in the Canaries.
Further, in granting IT’s appeal, the Court revoked the decision of the Commercial Court in what concerned the dismissal of the claim for pecuniary damages, which the First Instance Court had denied on the basis of the different size of the Companies and the lack of relevance of the defendant’s activities for IT’s business, and ordered the defendant to pay IT a compensation for the profits made with the misleading presentation.

Luis Fernández-Novoa and Álvaro Velázquez handled the litigation for Imperial Tobacco.

2014-04-10 Press
Ja 646 Theo Blomme to take part in panel at Fordham IP Conference 24 - 25 April 2014 Fordham School of Law, New York Thu, 04/24/2014 (All day) Theo Blomme will be part of a panel on "Evolving standards for disclosing and claiming inventions" at the annual Intellectual Property Law & Policy conference, which is held in New York at the Fordham University School of Law on 24 and 25 April.

Theo Blomme will be part of a panel on "Evolving standards for disclosing and claiming inventions" at the annual Intellectual Property Law & Policy conference, which is held in New York at the Fordham University School of Law on 24  and 25 April.
Click here for more information on the program.

2014-04-15 Events
Ja 647 Fabienne Brison to speak at Federation of Belgian Entreprises 28 April 2014 Brussels Mon, 04/28/2014 (All day) Fabienne Brison will speak at the IP seminar organised by the Federation of Belgian Enterprises (FEB/VBO) on the new IP code and more specifically the changes made to copyright law.

Fabienne Brison will speak at the IP seminar organised by the Federation of Belgian Enterprises (FEB/VBO) on the new IP code and more specifically the changes made to copyright law. The Federation organises special updates on Intellectual Property law, Carina Gommers and Benoît Strowel are also invited to speak on trademarks and patents  in September and December. 

2014-04-16 Events
Ja 648 Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court 2014 4 July 2014 Paris, France Fri, 07/04/2014 (All day) As knowledge partner, Hoyng Monegier will participate in Premier Cercle's upcoming Unitary Patent & Unified Court Conference.

Following a successful start in 2013, the Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court Conference is being established as an annual premium event and leading conference on the latest advancements in the UP & UPC with high-profile participants from all over Europe and North America.

 

For more information about the speakers and registration:   http://www.premiercercle.com/index.php?item=event-details&ide=194

2014-05-09 Events
Ja 649 IP rights in motion. Recent European Directives et the Economic Code 04 June 2014 Leuven, Belgium Wed, 06/04/2014 (All day) Fabienne Brison and Benoit Michaux will be speaking about cable transfer and changes made to copyright law at a conference organised by CIR (Centre for Intellectual Property Rights) and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL).

Fabienne Brison and Benoit Michaux will be speaking about cable transfer and recent changes made to copyright law at a conference organised by CIR (Centre for Intellectual Property Rights) and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL).

 

2014-05-27 Events
Ja 650 Licensing under FRAND commitments 23 June 2014 Brussels, Belgium Mon, 06/23/2014 (All day) Bart van den Broek will participate in a panel on "Licensing under FRAND commitments: current practice and recent debate" during a conference organised by Global Competition Review. The conference will be held in Brussels on Monday 23 June.

Bart van den Broek will participate in a panel on "Licensing under FRAND commitments: current practice and recent debate" during a conference organised by Global Competition Review. The conference will be held in Brussels on Monday 23 June.

 

2014-06-18 Events
Ja 651 ALAI Congress 18 September 2014 Brussels, Belgium Thu, 09/18/2014 (All day) The Belgian chapter of ALAI (Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale) will be hosting the 2014 ALAI congress in Brussels on 18 and 19 September 2014.

The Belgian chapter of ALAI (Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale) will be hosting the 2014 ALAI congress in Brussels on 18 and 19 September 2014.

This congress will evolve around the theme of “Moral Rights in the 21st Century”, during which the international copyright community will discuss the changing role of moral rights in an era of information overload.
 
The dedicated congress website is now open at the following address: http://alai2014.org
 
Please visit the website for detailed information on the congress, registration and hotel reservations and to follow the congress blog.

Fabienne Brison is chair of the Belgian chapter; Benoit Michaux is member of the board of the Belgian chapter.

2014-07-03 Events
Ja 652 The Pharmaceutical Legal Framework 16-18 September 2014 Cambridge, United Kingdom Tue, 09/16/2014 (All day) Carla Schoonderbeek will give a presentation on the Pharmaceutical Legal Framework during IBC's Pharmaceutical Law Academy which will be held from 16 to 18 September at Cambridge University.

Carla Schoonderbeek will give a presentation on the Pharmaceutical Legal Framework during IBC's Pharmaceutical Law Academy which will be held from 16 to 18 September at Cambridge University.

Click here for more information about the conference.

2014-07-07 Events
Ja 658 AIPLA annual meeting 23 October 2014 Washington DC Thu, 10/23/2014 (All day) On 23 October 2014, Willem Hoyng will be part of a panel on “The UPC in the European Patent Litigation Landscape” at the AIPLA Annual Meeting in Washington (DC).

On 23 October 2014, Willem Hoyng will be part of a panel on “The UPC in the European Patent Litigation Landscape” at the AIPLA Annual Meeting in Washington (DC). More information is available here.

2014-08-07 Events
Ja 659 Hoyng Monegier obtains an ex parte injunction by the Spanish Court against Bayer Hispania for patent infringement 20 August 2014 Wed, 08/20/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier, representing Merck Sharp & Dohme Animal Health, S.L. and Intervet International, B.V., in a patent infringement and unfair competition litigation, recently obtained an important victory before the Commercial Court of Barcelona which upheld, in 24 hours, the firm’s Spanish team request for ex parte preliminary injunction against Bayer Hispania, the Spanish branch of the group Bayer.

Hoyng Monegier, representing Merck Sharp & Dohme Animal Health, S.L. and Intervet International, B.V., in a patent infringement and unfair competition litigation, recently obtained an important victory before the Commercial Court of Barcelona which upheld, in 24 hours, the firm’s Spanish team request for ex parte preliminary injunction against Bayer Hispania, the Spanish branch of the group Bayer.

Our client is the owner of the ES 2198736 patent (the Spanish validation of the European Patent 1022944) named “Repellent pest control system”. Such patent protects the use of an active ingredient of the pyrethroids family in the manufacturing of a medicine in the form of a canine collar to control canine leishmaniasis and it is exploited in Spain through the commercialization of a canine collar called Scalibor.

Barcelona’s Commercial Court, fully accepting the claims made by Hoyng Monegier, recognised that the activities carried out by Bayer Hispania, consisting of the promotion, by a Marketing Circular forwarded to its distributors and clients as well as by several advertisings actions, of the capability of Seresto collar to protect dogs against the bites of the so called phlebotomine sand-fly causing leishmaniasis, could infringe our client’s patent right.

Thus, on 29 July 2014, the abovementioned Court, upholding the Madrid team’s request for ex parte injunction and within an extremely short term ordered Bayer Hispania (among other measures) to immediately cease from promoting its canine collar Seresto as being capable of reducing the leishmaniasis in dogs, to publish the Court’s Order in its website and to forward said Order to all those recipients which received said Marketing Circular promoting such alleged new property of the collar Seresto.

This ex parte preliminary injunction decision is not final and Bayer has the possibility to file a brief of opposition against it.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Animal Health, S.L. and Intervet International B.V. are represented by Luis Fernández-Novoa. J.A. Sanmartin and Laura Cantero.

2014-08-20 Press
Ja 659 Hoyng Monegier obtains an ex parte injunction by the Spanish Court against Bayer Hispania for patent infringement 20 August 2014 Wed, 08/20/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier, representing Merck Sharp & Dohme Animal Health, S.L. and Intervet International, B.V., in a patent infringement and unfair competition litigation, recently obtained an important victory before the Commercial Court of Barcelona which upheld, in 24 hours, the firm’s Spanish team request for ex parte preliminary injunction against Bayer Hispania, the Spanish branch of the group Bayer.

Hoyng Monegier, representing Merck Sharp & Dohme Animal Health, S.L. and Intervet International, B.V., in a patent infringement and unfair competition litigation, recently obtained an important victory before the Commercial Court of Barcelona which upheld, in 24 hours, the firm’s Spanish team request for ex parte preliminary injunction against Bayer Hispania, the Spanish branch of the group Bayer.

Our client is the owner of the ES 2198736 patent (the Spanish validation of the European Patent 1022944) named “Repellent pest control system”. Such patent protects the use of an active ingredient of the pyrethroids family in the manufacturing of a medicine in the form of a canine collar to control canine leishmaniasis and it is exploited in Spain through the commercialization of a canine collar called Scalibor.

Barcelona’s Commercial Court, fully accepting the claims made by Hoyng Monegier, recognised that the activities carried out by Bayer Hispania, consisting of the promotion, by a Marketing Circular forwarded to its distributors and clients as well as by several advertisings actions, of the capability of Seresto collar to protect dogs against the bites of the so called phlebotomine sand-fly causing leishmaniasis, could infringe our client’s patent right.

Thus, on 29 July 2014, the abovementioned Court, upholding the Madrid team’s request for ex parte injunction and within an extremely short term ordered Bayer Hispania (among other measures) to immediately cease from promoting its canine collar Seresto as being capable of reducing the leishmaniasis in dogs, to publish the Court’s Order in its website and to forward said Order to all those recipients which received said Marketing Circular promoting such alleged new property of the collar Seresto.

This ex parte preliminary injunction decision is not final and Bayer has the possibility to file a brief of opposition against it.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Animal Health, S.L. and Intervet International B.V. are represented by Luis Fernández-Novoa. J.A. Sanmartin and Laura Cantero.

2014-08-20 Patents
Ja 659 Hoyng Monegier obtains an ex parte injunction by the Spanish Court against Bayer Hispania for patent infringement 20 August 2014 Wed, 08/20/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier, representing Merck Sharp & Dohme Animal Health, S.L. and Intervet International, B.V., in a patent infringement and unfair competition litigation, recently obtained an important victory before the Commercial Court of Barcelona which upheld, in 24 hours, the firm’s Spanish team request for ex parte preliminary injunction against Bayer Hispania, the Spanish branch of the group Bayer.

Hoyng Monegier, representing Merck Sharp & Dohme Animal Health, S.L. and Intervet International, B.V., in a patent infringement and unfair competition litigation, recently obtained an important victory before the Commercial Court of Barcelona which upheld, in 24 hours, the firm’s Spanish team request for ex parte preliminary injunction against Bayer Hispania, the Spanish branch of the group Bayer.

Our client is the owner of the ES 2198736 patent (the Spanish validation of the European Patent 1022944) named “Repellent pest control system”. Such patent protects the use of an active ingredient of the pyrethroids family in the manufacturing of a medicine in the form of a canine collar to control canine leishmaniasis and it is exploited in Spain through the commercialization of a canine collar called Scalibor.

Barcelona’s Commercial Court, fully accepting the claims made by Hoyng Monegier, recognised that the activities carried out by Bayer Hispania, consisting of the promotion, by a Marketing Circular forwarded to its distributors and clients as well as by several advertisings actions, of the capability of Seresto collar to protect dogs against the bites of the so called phlebotomine sand-fly causing leishmaniasis, could infringe our client’s patent right.

Thus, on 29 July 2014, the abovementioned Court, upholding the Madrid team’s request for ex parte injunction and within an extremely short term ordered Bayer Hispania (among other measures) to immediately cease from promoting its canine collar Seresto as being capable of reducing the leishmaniasis in dogs, to publish the Court’s Order in its website and to forward said Order to all those recipients which received said Marketing Circular promoting such alleged new property of the collar Seresto.

This ex parte preliminary injunction decision is not final and Bayer has the possibility to file a brief of opposition against it.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Animal Health, S.L. and Intervet International B.V. are represented by Luis Fernández-Novoa. J.A. Sanmartin and Laura Cantero.

2014-08-20 Life Sciences
Ja 665 Willem Hoyng panel member during LES conference on future of UPC 8 September 2014 Lund, Sweden Mon, 09/08/2014 (All day) On 8 September Willem Hoyng is invited as panel member to discuss the future of UPC during an LES conference held in Lund, Sweden.

On 8 September Willem Hoyng is invited as panel member to discuss the future of UPC during an LES conference held in Lund, Sweden.

For more information click here

2014-08-29 Events
Ja 666 Leiden Revisited 9 September 2014 Leiden, The Netherlands Tue, 09/09/2014 (All day) Willem Hoyng is invited by the Leiden University to give an update about the UPC.

Willem Hoyng is invited by the Leiden University to give an update about the UPC.

 

2014-08-29 Events
Ja 667 IP update 18 September 2014 Eindhoven, The Netherlands Thu, 09/18/2014 (All day) Willem Hoyng is invited by De Lex to speak about patent cases during their "IP day for the South".

Willem Hoyng is invited by De Lex to speak about patent cases during their "IP day for the South". Click here for more information.

2014-08-29 Events
Ja 668 Autumn Lecture at the Association of Young Patent Attorneys 16 October 2014 Utrecht, The Netherlands Thu, 10/16/2014 (All day) On 16 October, Willem Hoyng will be speaking at the Autumn Lecture organised by the Association of Young Patent Attorneys. He will speak about the future of patent litigation.

On 16 October, Willem Hoyng will be speaking at the Autumn Lecture organised by the Association of Young Patent Attorneys. He will speak about the future of patent litigation.

2014-08-29 Events
Ja 669 CEIPI: Patent litigation in Europe 25 OCtober 2014 Strasbourg, France Sat, 10/25/2014 (All day) Willem Hoyng will speak about patent litigation in Europe at the CEIPI (Centre d'Etude International de la Propriété Intellectuelle).

Willem Hoyng will speak about patent litigation in Europe at the CEIPI (Centre d'Etude International de la Propriété Intellectuelle).

2014-08-29 Events
Ja 670 Life Sciences Summit 13 November 2014 Amsterdam, The Netherlands Thu, 11/13/2014 (All day) Willem Hoyng is invited to speak at the Life Sciences summit in Amsterdam. He will cover the following topic "how to prepare for the new litigation era".

Willem Hoyng is invited to speak at the Life Sciences summit in Amsterdam. He will cover the following topic "how to prepare for the new litigation era".

2014-08-29 Events
Ja 674 Back to Basics: intellectuele eigendomsrechten 22 October 2014 Zaventem, Belgium Wed, 10/22/2014 (All day) Fabienne Brison will speak about copyright at the Contrast Law Seminar: Back to basics: intellectuele eigendomsrechten.

Fabienne Brison will speak about copyright at the Contrast Law Seminar: Back to basics: intellectuele eigendomsrechten. Click here for more information.

2014-09-04 Events
Ja 675 BMM celebrates its 40th birthday 6 and 7 november 2014 's Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands Thu, 11/06/2014 (All day) Fabienne Brison will speak about copyright infringement in music during BMM's anniversary meeting on 6 and 7 November 2014.

Fabienne Brison will speak about copyright infringement in music during BMM's anniversary (Benelux Association of Trademark and Design law)  meeting on 6 and 7 November 2014. Click here for more information.

2014-09-04 Events
Ja 677 Europe pakt misbruik van bedrijfsgeheimen aan 24 April 2014 Thu, 04/24/2014 (All day) Carina Gommers and Tim Robrechts published an article on trade secrets in Trends: "Europa pakt misbruik van bedrijfsgeheimen aan." Trends 24/04/2014

Click here to read Carina Gommers and Tim Robrechts's article on Trade Secrets which was published in Trends.

2014-09-12 Publications
Ja 678 Mag de douane mijn namaakhorloge vernietigen? 3 July 2014 Thu, 07/03/2014 (All day) Carin Gommers published an article on counterfeit goods and customs in Trends: "Mag de douane mijn namaakhorloge vernietigen?" Trends 03/07/2014

Click here to read an article by Carina Gommers on counterfeit goods and customs which was published in Trends.

2014-09-12 Publications
Ja 679 Wees precies als u een kleurmerk aanvraagt 5 June 2014 Thu, 06/05/2014 (All day) Carina Gommers published an article on colour trade mark following the famous Louboutin case in Trends: "Wees precies als u een kleurmerk aanvraagt" Trends 05/06/2014

Click here to read an article by Carina Gommers on colour trade mark following the famous Louboutin case which was published in Trends.

2014-09-12 Publications
Ja 680 Lors d'un dépôt de coulour la précision s'impose 17 July 2014 Thu, 07/17/2014 (All day) Carina Gommers published an article on colour trade mark following the famous Louboutin case published in Trends-Tendance. Trends-Tendance 17/07/2014

Click here to read an article by Carina Gommers on colour trade mark following the famous Louboutin case published in Trends-Tendance

2014-09-12 Publications
Ja 681 Je souhaite qu'Internet fasse table rase de mon passé! Est-ce possible? 14 August 2014 Thu, 08/14/2014 (All day) Stéphanie Hermoye published an article on the right to be forgotten on the internet in Trends-Tendance. Trends-Tendance 14/08/2014

Click here to read Stéphanie Hermoye's article on the right to be forgotten on the internet, published in Trends-Tendance

2014-09-12 Publications
Ja 682 L'impression 3D: une révolution sans danger? 10 April 2014 Thu, 04/10/2014 (All day) Carina Gommers and Stéphanie Hermoye published an article on 3D printing in Trends-Tendance. Trends-Tendance 10/04/2014

Click here to read an article by Carina Gommers and Stéphanie Hermoye on 3D printing published in Trends-Tendance.

2014-09-12 Publications
Ja 683 The autonomous concept of parody and conflicting fundamental rights: a balancing act 18 September 2014 Thu, 09/18/2014 (All day) Carina Gommers has written a comment on the concept of parody following the Advocate General's opinion in case C-201/13 Deckmyn v. heirs Vandersteen.

Carina Gommers has written a comment on the concept of parody following the Advocate General's opinion in case C-201/13 Deckmyn v. heirs Vandersteen. Her article was published in the Oxford Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. Click here to read it.

2014-09-18 Publications
Ja 684 Middagen intellectuele eigendom: Merken en Namaak 14 October 2014 Brussels, Belgium Tue, 10/14/2014 (All day) Carina Gommers will be speaking about the new EU counterfeit Goods regulation at VBO's seminar dedicated to IP. The seminar will cover the impact of this new regulation on companies, solutions for goods in transit and much more.

Carina Gommers will be speaking about the new EU counterfeit Goods regulation at VBO's seminar dedicated to IP. The seminar will cover the impact of this new regulation on companies, solutions for goods in transit and much more. 

2014-09-18 Events
Ja 687 Bestaand werk voor reclame gebruiken 25 September 2014 Thu, 09/25/2014 (All day) Carina Gommers published an article on the use of someone else's work as a parody in Trends: "Bestaand werk voor reclame gebruiken". Trends

Click here to read an article on the use of someone else's work as a parody. The article was written by Carina Gommers for Trends and was published in September 2014.

2014-10-03 Publications
Ja 688 Merkbescherming voor winkelinterieur 20 Augustus 2014 Wed, 08/20/2014 (All day) Carina Gommers published an article on the TM protection for shop interiors in Trends: "Merkbescherming voor winkelinterieur". Trends

Click here to read an article on the TM protection for shop interiors which was published in Trends

2014-10-03 Publications
Ja 689 Masterclass Patents: 3D printing and IP rights 12 November 2014 Utrecht, the Netherlands Wed, 11/12/2014 (All day) Willem Hoyng will preside a patents masterclass on 3D printing in Utrecht on 12 November 2014.

Willem Hoyng will preside a patents masterclass on 3D printing in Utrecht on 12 November 2014. The masterclass will be held in Dutch. Click here should you wish to register.

2014-10-06 Events
Ja 690 Jeux vidéo: attention au piratage! 18 April 2013 Thu, 04/18/2013 (All day) Stéphanie Hermye published an article on linkers who allow to play play counterfeited games on game stations in Trends-Tendance: "Jeux vidéo: attention au piratage!" Trends-Tendance 18/04/2013

Click here to read Stéphanie Hermoye's article on linkers who allow to play counterfeited games on game stations which was published in Trends-Tendance.

2014-10-06 Publications
Ja 691 Ai-je le droit d'entregistrer une marque sur une forme? 20 June 2013 Thu, 06/20/2013 (All day) Stéphanie Hermoye published an article on the 3 dimensional trade marks in Trends-Tendance: "Ai-je le droit d'enregistrer une marque sous une forme?". Trends-Tendance 20/06/2013

Click here to read Stéphanie Hermoye's article on the 3 dimensional trade marks which was published in Trends-Tendance.

2014-10-06 Publications
Ja 692 IP Summit 4 and 5 December 2014 Brussels, Belgium Tue, 12/04/2012 (All day) Hoyng Monegier is proud to be Premier Cercle's knowledge partner during its 9th edition of its IP summit.

The summit will take place on Thursday 4 and Friday 5 December in Brussels. Various topics will be tackled such as 3D printing, the Svensson case, the UPC, new patent challenges and much more. With a mix of keynote speeches, plenary sessions and workshops. The IP summit creates a unique opportunity to meet decision makers and industry leaders and share their views on the future of IP.

Click here for more information about the conference.

2014-10-07 Events
Ja 693 15th Open Forum of the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys 7 November 2014 Barcelona, Spain Fri, 11/07/2014 (All day) On Friday 7 November 2014, Simon Dack (Hoyng Monegier Amsterdam) will be acting as moderator in a workshop on the Unified Patent Court, held at the 15th Open Forum of the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys, in Barcelona (Spain).

On Friday 7 November 2014, Simon Dack (Hoyng Monegier Amsterdam) will be acting as moderator in a workshop on the Unified Patent Court, held at the 15th  Open Forum of the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys, in Barcelona (Spain).

2014-10-08 Events
Ja 694 The future of industrial property litigation in the pharmaceutical sector 21-22 October 2014 Madrid, Spain Tue, 10/21/2014 (All day) Luis Fernàndez-Novoa will be speaking about the future of industrial property litigation in the pharmaceutical sector during a seminar focussed on the pharmaceutical sector, organised by CEFI (Centro de Estudios para el Fomento de la Investigación).

Luis Fernàndez-Novoa will be speaking about the future of industrial property litigation in the pharmaceutical sector during a seminar focussed on the pharmaceutical sector, organised by CEFI (Centro de Estudios para el Fomento de la Investigación).

 

2014-10-08 Events
Ja 695 Cross-border win for Hunter Douglas in Ado Trademark entitlement dispute 1 October 2014 Wed, 10/01/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier’s Brussels and Amsterdam offices successfully represented the Hunter Douglas group in a trademark entitlement dispute with its German competitor Zimmer + Rohde.

Hoyng Monegier’s Brussels and Amsterdam offices successfully represented the Hunter Douglas group in a trademark entitlement dispute with its German competitor Zimmer + Rohde.
In 2012, Zimmer + Rohde acquired ownership rights in the well-known ADO trademark for curtains and similar goods, and registered the ADO Community trademark in its own name even though it knew that the exclusive rights for the Benelux had previously been sold to Hunter Douglas.
In its judgment of 30 September 2014, the Brussels Court of Appeal ruled that the earlier grant of exclusive Benelux rights in the ADO trademark to Hunter Douglas was opposable to Zimmer + Rohde by virtue of Art. 23(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation. Pending the determination of the exact nature of Hunter Douglas’ exclusive rights for the Benelux (ownership or long-lasting exclusive license), the Court of Appeal has enjoined Zimmer + Rohde from using the ADO mark in Belgium until the competent court will have reached a final decision on the merits. Zimmer + Rohde may also not (continue to) falsely claim that Hunter Douglas does not hold exclusive rights to the ADO trademark in the Benelux, or that they themselves hold any exclusivity. Further, Zimmer + Rohde is obliged to produce a list of Hunter Douglas customers to whom it has sent such false communications. The orders are reinforced by a penalty per day or per time that Zimmer + Rohde does not comply with these orders.

In another judgment of 1st October 2014, the President of the Commercial Court of Brussels dismissed proceedings instituted by Zimmer + Rohde in Belgium in order to obtain an injunction on the merits, based upon its registration of the ADO Community trademark. The President also relied upon Art. 23(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation to uphold Hunter Douglas’ exclusive rights in the Benelux against Zimmer + Rohde’s CTM registration.
The judgments (in Dutch) are available here and here.
The Belgian cases are handled by Carl De Meyer and Eva De Pauw of the Brussels office of Hoyng Monegier.
Earlier this year the Amsterdam team of Hoyng Monegier (Marlou van de Braak and Jos Klaus) already obtained similar measures for the Netherlands, from the President of the District Court of The Hague (click here for the decision in Dutch).

2014-10-09 Trademarks
Ja 695 Cross-border win for Hunter Douglas in Ado Trademark entitlement dispute 1 October 2014 Wed, 10/01/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier’s Brussels and Amsterdam offices successfully represented the Hunter Douglas group in a trademark entitlement dispute with its German competitor Zimmer + Rohde.

Hoyng Monegier’s Brussels and Amsterdam offices successfully represented the Hunter Douglas group in a trademark entitlement dispute with its German competitor Zimmer + Rohde.
In 2012, Zimmer + Rohde acquired ownership rights in the well-known ADO trademark for curtains and similar goods, and registered the ADO Community trademark in its own name even though it knew that the exclusive rights for the Benelux had previously been sold to Hunter Douglas.
In its judgment of 30 September 2014, the Brussels Court of Appeal ruled that the earlier grant of exclusive Benelux rights in the ADO trademark to Hunter Douglas was opposable to Zimmer + Rohde by virtue of Art. 23(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation. Pending the determination of the exact nature of Hunter Douglas’ exclusive rights for the Benelux (ownership or long-lasting exclusive license), the Court of Appeal has enjoined Zimmer + Rohde from using the ADO mark in Belgium until the competent court will have reached a final decision on the merits. Zimmer + Rohde may also not (continue to) falsely claim that Hunter Douglas does not hold exclusive rights to the ADO trademark in the Benelux, or that they themselves hold any exclusivity. Further, Zimmer + Rohde is obliged to produce a list of Hunter Douglas customers to whom it has sent such false communications. The orders are reinforced by a penalty per day or per time that Zimmer + Rohde does not comply with these orders.

In another judgment of 1st October 2014, the President of the Commercial Court of Brussels dismissed proceedings instituted by Zimmer + Rohde in Belgium in order to obtain an injunction on the merits, based upon its registration of the ADO Community trademark. The President also relied upon Art. 23(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation to uphold Hunter Douglas’ exclusive rights in the Benelux against Zimmer + Rohde’s CTM registration.
The judgments (in Dutch) are available here and here.
The Belgian cases are handled by Carl De Meyer and Eva De Pauw of the Brussels office of Hoyng Monegier.
Earlier this year the Amsterdam team of Hoyng Monegier (Marlou van de Braak and Jos Klaus) already obtained similar measures for the Netherlands, from the President of the District Court of The Hague (click here for the decision in Dutch).

2014-10-09 Consumer Products
Ja 695 Cross-border win for Hunter Douglas in Ado Trademark entitlement dispute 1 October 2014 Wed, 10/01/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier’s Brussels and Amsterdam offices successfully represented the Hunter Douglas group in a trademark entitlement dispute with its German competitor Zimmer + Rohde.

Hoyng Monegier’s Brussels and Amsterdam offices successfully represented the Hunter Douglas group in a trademark entitlement dispute with its German competitor Zimmer + Rohde.
In 2012, Zimmer + Rohde acquired ownership rights in the well-known ADO trademark for curtains and similar goods, and registered the ADO Community trademark in its own name even though it knew that the exclusive rights for the Benelux had previously been sold to Hunter Douglas.
In its judgment of 30 September 2014, the Brussels Court of Appeal ruled that the earlier grant of exclusive Benelux rights in the ADO trademark to Hunter Douglas was opposable to Zimmer + Rohde by virtue of Art. 23(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation. Pending the determination of the exact nature of Hunter Douglas’ exclusive rights for the Benelux (ownership or long-lasting exclusive license), the Court of Appeal has enjoined Zimmer + Rohde from using the ADO mark in Belgium until the competent court will have reached a final decision on the merits. Zimmer + Rohde may also not (continue to) falsely claim that Hunter Douglas does not hold exclusive rights to the ADO trademark in the Benelux, or that they themselves hold any exclusivity. Further, Zimmer + Rohde is obliged to produce a list of Hunter Douglas customers to whom it has sent such false communications. The orders are reinforced by a penalty per day or per time that Zimmer + Rohde does not comply with these orders.

In another judgment of 1st October 2014, the President of the Commercial Court of Brussels dismissed proceedings instituted by Zimmer + Rohde in Belgium in order to obtain an injunction on the merits, based upon its registration of the ADO Community trademark. The President also relied upon Art. 23(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation to uphold Hunter Douglas’ exclusive rights in the Benelux against Zimmer + Rohde’s CTM registration.
The judgments (in Dutch) are available here and here.
The Belgian cases are handled by Carl De Meyer and Eva De Pauw of the Brussels office of Hoyng Monegier.
Earlier this year the Amsterdam team of Hoyng Monegier (Marlou van de Braak and Jos Klaus) already obtained similar measures for the Netherlands, from the President of the District Court of The Hague (click here for the decision in Dutch).

2014-10-09 Press
Ja 696 Hoyng Monegier obtains victory before Boards of Appeal European Patent Office 17 October 2014 Fri, 10/17/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier has obtained an important victory for SCA Tissue France before the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office in Munich.

Hoyng Monegier has obtained an important victory for SCA Tissue France before the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office in Munich.
In these appeal proceedings, the Boards of Appeal dismissed the opposition invoked by Global Hygiène and upheld the patent of SCA.

SCA Tissue France was successfully represented by dr. Jeroen den Hartog (Amsterdam office) and will be represented by Sophie Micallef (Paris office) for ongoing litigation in France.

2014-10-17 Press
Ja 700 Dutch court rejects claims ZTE 29 October 2014 Wed, 10/29/2014 (All day) In its decision of October 24, 2014 the President of the District Court The Hague rejected the request by ZTE Corporation, ZTE Deutschland and ZTE Netherlands (“ZTE”) to order Vringo Infrastructure Inc. (“Vringo”) to stop the border detention measures based on the Anti Piracy Regulation and to release ZTE’s UMTS-products that were detained by Dutch customs in Rotterdam.

In its decision of October 24, 2014 the President of the District Court The Hague rejected the request by ZTE Corporation, ZTE Deutschland and ZTE Netherlands (“ZTE”) to order Vringo Infrastructure Inc. (“Vringo”) to stop the border detention measures based on the Anti Piracy Regulation and to release ZTE’s UMTS-products that  were detained by Dutch customs in Rotterdam.
Vringo, represented by Hoyng Monegier, is the owner of a portfolio of patents relating to 2G/3G/4G telecommunication equipment. The portfolio was transferred to Vringo by Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”). Nokia and thereafter Vringo have offered ZTE a license under the standard essential patents (SEPs) in this portfolio under “fair reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) conditions. Despite these offers, ZTE did not conclude a license agreement.

2014-10-30 Events
Ja 701 Dutch Court rejects claims ZTE 29 October 2014 Wed, 10/29/2014 (All day) In its decision of October 24, 2014 the President of the District Court The Hague rejected the request by ZTE Corporation, ZTE Deutschland and ZTE Netherlands (“ZTE”) to order Vringo Infrastructure Inc. (“Vringo”) to stop the border detention measures based on the Anti Piracy Regulation and to release ZTE’s UMTS-products that were detained by Dutch customs in Rotterdam.

Vringo, represented by Hoyng Monegier, is the owner of a portfolio of patents relating to 2G/3G/4G telecommunication equipment. The portfolio was transferred to Vringo by Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”). Nokia and thereafter Vringo have offered ZTE a license under the standard essential patents (SEPs) in this portfolio under “fair reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) conditions. Despite these offers, ZTE did not conclude a license agreement.

Starting in 2012, Vringo has instituted multiple infringement proceedings against ZTE, including in Germany, France, the UK, India, Brazil and recently in The Netherlands. In December 2013, the Landgericht Mannheim issued an injunction against ZTE to stop infringement of one of Vringo’s patents (“EP 119”).

On the basis of EP119, Dutch customs recently detained a number of ZTE’s UMTS-infrastructure products. In preliminary injunction proceedings instituted at the District Court The Hague, ZTE requested the release of these products and a prohibition against further border detention measures.

Referring to the recent decisions by the European Commission in the Motorola- and Samsung-cases, ZTE argued that Vringo’s enforcement measures violated its FRAND-obligations and constituted an abuse of a dominant position in accordance with article 102 EU-Treaty. The President disagreed and distinguished the case from the Motorola-case, in which Apple had been considered “willing” to conclude a license under FRAND-conditions. The President did not agree with ZTE that it could equally be considered a “willing licensee” stating that it could not be assumed for now that ZTE is in genuine pursuit of a license. The President also concluded that ZTE’s invalidity – and non-infringement arguments could not result in the release of the detained UMTS-products.

Following the detention of the products by customs, Vringo has started proceedings on the merits at the District Court The Hague in which the destruction of the detained products is requested. These proceedings are still pending. ZTE has until November 21, 2014 to appeal the decision of the President in the preliminary injunction proceedings. A copy of the decision and an (unofficial) English translation thereof can be downloaded here in Dutch and English.

The Hoyng Monegier team in Amsterdam acting for Vringo consists of Bart van den Broek, Frank Eijsvogels, David Owen, Robin van Kleeff and Andrew Lin. Vringo is also represented by other offices of Hoyng Monegier, including by our office in Madrid, Spain.

2014-10-30 Telecoms & Electronics
Ja 701 Dutch Court rejects claims ZTE 29 October 2014 Wed, 10/29/2014 (All day) In its decision of October 24, 2014 the President of the District Court The Hague rejected the request by ZTE Corporation, ZTE Deutschland and ZTE Netherlands (“ZTE”) to order Vringo Infrastructure Inc. (“Vringo”) to stop the border detention measures based on the Anti Piracy Regulation and to release ZTE’s UMTS-products that were detained by Dutch customs in Rotterdam.

Vringo, represented by Hoyng Monegier, is the owner of a portfolio of patents relating to 2G/3G/4G telecommunication equipment. The portfolio was transferred to Vringo by Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”). Nokia and thereafter Vringo have offered ZTE a license under the standard essential patents (SEPs) in this portfolio under “fair reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) conditions. Despite these offers, ZTE did not conclude a license agreement.

Starting in 2012, Vringo has instituted multiple infringement proceedings against ZTE, including in Germany, France, the UK, India, Brazil and recently in The Netherlands. In December 2013, the Landgericht Mannheim issued an injunction against ZTE to stop infringement of one of Vringo’s patents (“EP 119”).

On the basis of EP119, Dutch customs recently detained a number of ZTE’s UMTS-infrastructure products. In preliminary injunction proceedings instituted at the District Court The Hague, ZTE requested the release of these products and a prohibition against further border detention measures.

Referring to the recent decisions by the European Commission in the Motorola- and Samsung-cases, ZTE argued that Vringo’s enforcement measures violated its FRAND-obligations and constituted an abuse of a dominant position in accordance with article 102 EU-Treaty. The President disagreed and distinguished the case from the Motorola-case, in which Apple had been considered “willing” to conclude a license under FRAND-conditions. The President did not agree with ZTE that it could equally be considered a “willing licensee” stating that it could not be assumed for now that ZTE is in genuine pursuit of a license. The President also concluded that ZTE’s invalidity – and non-infringement arguments could not result in the release of the detained UMTS-products.

Following the detention of the products by customs, Vringo has started proceedings on the merits at the District Court The Hague in which the destruction of the detained products is requested. These proceedings are still pending. ZTE has until November 21, 2014 to appeal the decision of the President in the preliminary injunction proceedings. A copy of the decision and an (unofficial) English translation thereof can be downloaded here in Dutch and English.

The Hoyng Monegier team in Amsterdam acting for Vringo consists of Bart van den Broek, Frank Eijsvogels, David Owen, Robin van Kleeff and Andrew Lin. Vringo is also represented by other offices of Hoyng Monegier, including by our office in Madrid, Spain.

2014-10-30 Press
Ja 701 Dutch Court rejects claims ZTE 29 October 2014 Wed, 10/29/2014 (All day) In its decision of October 24, 2014 the President of the District Court The Hague rejected the request by ZTE Corporation, ZTE Deutschland and ZTE Netherlands (“ZTE”) to order Vringo Infrastructure Inc. (“Vringo”) to stop the border detention measures based on the Anti Piracy Regulation and to release ZTE’s UMTS-products that were detained by Dutch customs in Rotterdam.

Vringo, represented by Hoyng Monegier, is the owner of a portfolio of patents relating to 2G/3G/4G telecommunication equipment. The portfolio was transferred to Vringo by Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”). Nokia and thereafter Vringo have offered ZTE a license under the standard essential patents (SEPs) in this portfolio under “fair reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) conditions. Despite these offers, ZTE did not conclude a license agreement.

Starting in 2012, Vringo has instituted multiple infringement proceedings against ZTE, including in Germany, France, the UK, India, Brazil and recently in The Netherlands. In December 2013, the Landgericht Mannheim issued an injunction against ZTE to stop infringement of one of Vringo’s patents (“EP 119”).

On the basis of EP119, Dutch customs recently detained a number of ZTE’s UMTS-infrastructure products. In preliminary injunction proceedings instituted at the District Court The Hague, ZTE requested the release of these products and a prohibition against further border detention measures.

Referring to the recent decisions by the European Commission in the Motorola- and Samsung-cases, ZTE argued that Vringo’s enforcement measures violated its FRAND-obligations and constituted an abuse of a dominant position in accordance with article 102 EU-Treaty. The President disagreed and distinguished the case from the Motorola-case, in which Apple had been considered “willing” to conclude a license under FRAND-conditions. The President did not agree with ZTE that it could equally be considered a “willing licensee” stating that it could not be assumed for now that ZTE is in genuine pursuit of a license. The President also concluded that ZTE’s invalidity – and non-infringement arguments could not result in the release of the detained UMTS-products.

Following the detention of the products by customs, Vringo has started proceedings on the merits at the District Court The Hague in which the destruction of the detained products is requested. These proceedings are still pending. ZTE has until November 21, 2014 to appeal the decision of the President in the preliminary injunction proceedings. A copy of the decision and an (unofficial) English translation thereof can be downloaded here in Dutch and English.

The Hoyng Monegier team in Amsterdam acting for Vringo consists of Bart van den Broek, Frank Eijsvogels, David Owen, Robin van Kleeff and Andrew Lin. Vringo is also represented by other offices of Hoyng Monegier, including by our office in Madrid, Spain.

2014-10-30 Patents
Ja 703 Hoyng Monegier successfully represented SBS Belgium in a dispute re. cloud services to record TV programs 5 November 2014 Wed, 11/05/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier successfully represented SBS Belgium, a Flemish broadcaster, in a dispute before the Court of Antwerp concerning “Bhaalu”, a cloud service to record television programs, for which Right Brain Interface claims no copyrights are due, based on the “private copy”-exception in the Belgian Copyright Act.

Hoyng Monegier successfully represented SBS Belgium, a Flemish broadcaster, in a dispute before the Court of Antwerp concerning “Bhaalu”, a cloud service to record television programs, for which Right Brain Interface claims no copyrights are due, based on the “private copy”-exception in the Belgian Copyright Act. The Antwerp Court  ruled in favor of the broadcasters (SBS Belgium, together with VRT and Medialaan) and declared that Bhaalu infringes the claimants copy- and neighboring rights because it copies television signals from an illicit source and communicates the copied signals to the public, even if the subscribers may lawfully receive the broadcast on a television receiver. Right Brain Interface must be considered as an intermediary whose services, used for such infringements, need to cease. Click here to read the judgment (in Dutch). SBS Belgium was represented by Fabienne Brison.

2014-11-05 Press
Ja 716 Hoyng Monegier welcomes two new partners as of 1 January 2015 18 December 2015 Thu, 12/18/2014 (All day) Hoyng Monegier welcomes two new partners as of 1 January 2015: Geert Theuws and Theo Blomme. Both are based at Hoyng Monegier’s Amsterdam office.

Hoyng Monegier welcomes two new partners as of 1 January 2015: Geert Theuws and Theo Blomme. Both are based at Hoyng Monegier’s Amsterdam office.
Geert Theuws (37) practices in all areas of intellectual property law, with a particular emphasis on patent law. He has a wide experience in all facets of complex, multi-jurisdictional patent cases in the areas of electronics, pharmaceuticals and mechanics.

Theo Blomme (38) has a background in both science and law and is a all-round patent litigator. His practice comprises the fields of telecommunications and computer related technology, pharmaceuticals, biotech, oil and gas, electronics and mechanical engineering.

Willem Hoyng, Managing Partner of Hoyng Monegier: "We are proud that these two first-rate lawyers are joining the partnership. These promotions confirm their outstanding contribution to Hoyng Monegier’s success. On behalf of the partnership, I congratulate them on this achievement.”

These appointments bring Hoyng Monegier’s partnership to 26 since its launch in January 2011.

2014-12-18 Press
Ja 721 CEIPI course on patent litigation 18 February 2015 Strasbourg Wed, 02/18/2015 (All day) Willem Hoyng will give a presentation on "What does it take to be an effective litigator in the UPC" during a course organised by CEIPI on patent litigation. 2015-01-20 Events
Ja 722 Shape Marks 26 March 2015 Antwerp Thu, 03/26/2015 (All day) Marlou van de Braak will lecture on shape marks during BMM's Spring Meeting in Antwerp.

Marlou van de Braak will lecture on shape marks during BMM's Spring Meeting in Antwerp.

2015-01-20 Events
Ja 723 What makes a good IP judge 4 and 5 June 2015 Bucharest Thu, 06/04/2015 (All day) Willem Hoyng will give a presentation at the EJTN on "How to make a good IP judge". The European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) is the principal platform and promoter for the training and exchange of knowledge of the European judiciary. EJTN represents the interests of over 160,000 European judges, prosecutors and judicial trainers across Europe.

Willem Hoyng will give a presentation at the EJTN on "How to make a good IP judge".
The European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) is the principal platform and promoter for the training and exchange of knowledge of the European judiciary. EJTN represents the interests of over 160,000 European judges, prosecutors and judicial trainers across Europe.

2015-01-20 Events
Ja 724 IP webinar 23 June 2015 webinar Tue, 06/23/2015 (All day) Willem will be giving a webinar on IP, organised by the Academy voor Rechtspraktijk. www.avdr.nl

Willem will be giving a webinar on IP, organised by the Academy voor Rechtspraktijk. www.avdr.nl

2015-01-20 Events
Ja 725 Enforcement of Biologics in Europe under the UPC 26 - 28 October 2015 Baltimore Mon, 10/26/2015 (All day) Willem Hoyng will be speaking at the Biosimilars Conference, organised in Baltimore. He will lecture on "Enforcement of Biologics in Europe under the UPC".

Willem Hoyng will be speaking at the Biosimilars Conference, organised in Baltimore. He will lecture on "Enforcement of Biologics in Europe under the UPC". For more information: http://biosimilars-biologics.pharmaceuticalconferences.com/

2015-01-20 Advertising
Ja 725 Enforcement of Biologics in Europe under the UPC 26 - 28 October 2015 Baltimore Mon, 10/26/2015 (All day) Willem Hoyng will be speaking at the Biosimilars Conference, organised in Baltimore. He will lecture on "Enforcement of Biologics in Europe under the UPC".

Willem Hoyng will be speaking at the Biosimilars Conference, organised in Baltimore. He will lecture on "Enforcement of Biologics in Europe under the UPC". For more information: http://biosimilars-biologics.pharmaceuticalconferences.com/

2015-01-20 Events
Ja 726 Recent developments in the area of SPC's 19 February 2015 Alicante Thu, 02/19/2015 (All day) Luis Fernandez-Novoa will lecture about “Recent developments in the area of supplementary protection certificates” during the annual meeting of AIPPI Spain in Alicante in February. 2015-01-22 Events
Ja 727 World Trademark Review Rankings 29 January 2015 Thu, 01/29/2015 (All day) "The USP of Hoyng Monegier is the strength in depth it showcases in each of its European offices, located in Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid and Paris. The ensemble is in its element when taking the lead on high-end cross-border IP litigations. " World Trademark Review 2015

"The USP of Hoyng Monegier is the strength in depth it showcases in each of its European offices, located in Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid and Paris. The ensemble is in its element when taking the lead on high-end cross-border IP litigations. " World Trademark Review 2015
Click here to view the rankings of our 4 offices.

2015-01-30 Trademarks
Ja 727 World Trademark Review Rankings 29 January 2015 Thu, 01/29/2015 (All day) "The USP of Hoyng Monegier is the strength in depth it showcases in each of its European offices, located in Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid and Paris. The ensemble is in its element when taking the lead on high-end cross-border IP litigations. " World Trademark Review 2015

"The USP of Hoyng Monegier is the strength in depth it showcases in each of its European offices, located in Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid and Paris. The ensemble is in its element when taking the lead on high-end cross-border IP litigations. " World Trademark Review 2015
Click here to view the rankings of our 4 offices.

2015-01-30 Press
Ja 728 Recent developments in copyright law 15 June 2015 Amsterdam Mon, 06/15/2015 (All day) Joris van Manen will be speaking on recent developments in copyright law at the DeLex Jurisprudentielunch Merken-, modellen-en auteursrecht. The venue will be De Balie, Amsterdam.

Joris van Manen will be speaking on recent developments in copyright law at the DeLex Jurisprudentielunch Merken-, modellen-en auteursrecht. The venue will be De Balie, Amsterdam.

2015-02-02 Events
Ja 729 Important victory for SBS Belgium in dispute against Telenet 16 February 2015 Mon, 02/16/2015 (All day) The Flemish broadcaster SBS Belgium, together with Medialaan and VRT, have obtained an important victory before the Belgian Constitutional Court in a dispute against Telenet.

The Flemish broadcaster SBS Belgium, together with Medialaan and VRT, have obtained an important victory before the Belgian Constitutional Court in a dispute against Telenet.

The Flemish decree on “signal integrity”, long sought and defended by broadcasters, states that distributors of audiovisual media services, such as Telenet and Belgacom, are not permitted to freely modify the broadcast signals they distribute. Should a distributor wish to launch new signal functionalities (such as delayed viewing, signal overlays, search engine-settings, program suggestions, social media-integration) they must obtain the broadcaster’s prior consent. Telenet considered this measure to be unfair and discriminatory because it applies to neither local sellers of DVD players and internal-hard-drive television sets; nor international companies such as Apple or Google. The Constitutional Court dismissed Telenet’s request for annulment of the decree reasoning that distributors play an essential role in the media landscape that justifies their distinct treatment; all the more because TV broadcasters are already prevented from groundlessly refusing to give their consent for new initiatives, such as signal modification, this being embodied in mediation procedures and eventual rights to seek court judgment in order to obtain approval for modification.

SBS Belgium was represented by Fabienne Brison.

2015-02-16 Copyright
Ja 729 Important victory for SBS Belgium in dispute against Telenet 16 February 2015 Mon, 02/16/2015 (All day) The Flemish broadcaster SBS Belgium, together with Medialaan and VRT, have obtained an important victory before the Belgian Constitutional Court in a dispute against Telenet.

The Flemish broadcaster SBS Belgium, together with Medialaan and VRT, have obtained an important victory before the Belgian Constitutional Court in a dispute against Telenet.

The Flemish decree on “signal integrity”, long sought and defended by broadcasters, states that distributors of audiovisual media services, such as Telenet and Belgacom, are not permitted to freely modify the broadcast signals they distribute. Should a distributor wish to launch new signal functionalities (such as delayed viewing, signal overlays, search engine-settings, program suggestions, social media-integration) they must obtain the broadcaster’s prior consent. Telenet considered this measure to be unfair and discriminatory because it applies to neither local sellers of DVD players and internal-hard-drive television sets; nor international companies such as Apple or Google. The Constitutional Court dismissed Telenet’s request for annulment of the decree reasoning that distributors play an essential role in the media landscape that justifies their distinct treatment; all the more because TV broadcasters are already prevented from groundlessly refusing to give their consent for new initiatives, such as signal modification, this being embodied in mediation procedures and eventual rights to seek court judgment in order to obtain approval for modification.

SBS Belgium was represented by Fabienne Brison.

2015-02-16 Press
Ja 733 Shape Marks 11 March 2015 Zeist Wed, 03/11/2015 (All day) Laura Fresco will lecture on shape marks during the AIPPI conference in Zeist.

Laura Fresco will lecture on shape marks during the AIPPI conference in Zeist.

2015-03-10 Events
Ja 734 Hoyng Monegier wins two Managing IP Awards 11 March 2015 London Wed, 03/11/2015 (All day) Hoyng Monegier received two awards last night during the 10th anniversary edition of Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Awards ceremony at The Intercontinental Hotel in London.

Hoyng Monegier received two awards last night during the 10th anniversary edition of Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Awards ceremony at The Intercontinental Hotel in London:
- Europe - Trademarks - IP Firm of the Year Award for 2015
- Belgium – Contentious - IP Firm of the Year' Award for 2015

The prizes were accepted by Laura Alonso, Joris van Manen, Carina Gommers and Steven Cattoor
The Global Awards recognize leading firms from over 40 jurisdictions worldwide and highlight firms, individuals and companies driving the IP market at an international level.
As in previous years, awards were presented to the firms behind the most innovative and challenging IP work of the past year.

File 1099File 1097

2015-03-12 Press
Ja 739 Important victory for Coca-Cola regarding protection of its famous trade dress and script 18 March 2015 Wed, 03/18/2015 (All day) Hoyng Monegier has achieved an important victory before the General Court in Luxembourg in an appeal concerning likelihood of confusion of a trademark which was found to imitate the famous trade dress of COCA-COLA and shared the word COLA (Case T-384/13).

Hoyng Monegier has achieved an important victory before the General Court in Luxembourg in an appeal concerning likelihood of confusion of a trademark which was found to imitate the famous trade dress of COCA-COLA and shared the word COLA (Case T-384/13). The General Court finds that the following trademark, filed to identify non-alcoholic beverages and advertising services:

File 1105

is confusingly similar with COCA-COLA’s earlier Community trademark for the COCA-COLA Script and the chromatic combination white lettering against red background in respect of goods in class 32, as well as with COCA-COLA (Word) mark for services in class 35.

The Court finds that the word element ‘cola’ is the dominant element in Intermark’s sign and affirms the relevance borne by the evidenced repute of the earlier marks in the case at hand, together with the fact that the common word element (COLA) is depicted in the sign applied for in Coca-Cola’s ‘classic white cursive script on a red background’, in spite of the fact that ‘cola’ may have weak distinctiveness in association with class 32 goods, as the applicant had argued and despite the additional element COCA in Coca-Cola’s sign and the graphic component and word element RIENERGY in the applicant’s mark, which the Court finds not to be entirely negligible and describes as a fanciful word, yet considers irrelevant to prevent likelihood of confusion.

With respect to the comparison with COCA-COLA (Word) in class 35, the Court insists on the dominant character of the term ‘cola’ in the mark applied for and acknowledges that it is a distinctive element in the earlier mark as regards those particular services.

This decision comes in a particularly good timing, a few days after the celebrated major re-design of Coca-Cola brand image under a ‘master brand’ strategy, which for the Spanish market translates into presenting the iconic red corporate colour prominently displayed across all varieties.

The Coca-Cola Company was represented by Laura Alonso.

Additional information can be found at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=163002&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=37582.

 

2015-03-19 Trademarks
Ja 739 Important victory for Coca-Cola regarding protection of its famous trade dress and script 18 March 2015 Wed, 03/18/2015 (All day) Hoyng Monegier has achieved an important victory before the General Court in Luxembourg in an appeal concerning likelihood of confusion of a trademark which was found to imitate the famous trade dress of COCA-COLA and shared the word COLA (Case T-384/13).

Hoyng Monegier has achieved an important victory before the General Court in Luxembourg in an appeal concerning likelihood of confusion of a trademark which was found to imitate the famous trade dress of COCA-COLA and shared the word COLA (Case T-384/13). The General Court finds that the following trademark, filed to identify non-alcoholic beverages and advertising services:

File 1105

is confusingly similar with COCA-COLA’s earlier Community trademark for the COCA-COLA Script and the chromatic combination white lettering against red background in respect of goods in class 32, as well as with COCA-COLA (Word) mark for services in class 35.

The Court finds that the word element ‘cola’ is the dominant element in Intermark’s sign and affirms the relevance borne by the evidenced repute of the earlier marks in the case at hand, together with the fact that the common word element (COLA) is depicted in the sign applied for in Coca-Cola’s ‘classic white cursive script on a red background’, in spite of the fact that ‘cola’ may have weak distinctiveness in association with class 32 goods, as the applicant had argued and despite the additional element COCA in Coca-Cola’s sign and the graphic component and word element RIENERGY in the applicant’s mark, which the Court finds not to be entirely negligible and describes as a fanciful word, yet considers irrelevant to prevent likelihood of confusion.

With respect to the comparison with COCA-COLA (Word) in class 35, the Court insists on the dominant character of the term ‘cola’ in the mark applied for and acknowledges that it is a distinctive element in the earlier mark as regards those particular services.

This decision comes in a particularly good timing, a few days after the celebrated major re-design of Coca-Cola brand image under a ‘master brand’ strategy, which for the Spanish market translates into presenting the iconic red corporate colour prominently displayed across all varieties.

The Coca-Cola Company was represented by Laura Alonso.

Additional information can be found at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=163002&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=37582.

 

2015-03-19 Press
Ja 740 European perspective on Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) 8 and 9 April 2015 Cambridge University, Faculty of Law, UK Wed, 04/08/2015 (All day) Theo Blomme to be speaker and panelist at Fordham IP CONFERENCE

Theo Blomme will talk about a European perspective on Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) and will be part of a panel on Priority Issues at the 23rd Annual Intellectual Property Law & Policy Conference, which is held in Cambridge, UK at the Cambridge University, Faculty of Law on 8 and 9 April.

Click here for more information on the program.

2015-03-25 Events
Ja 741 Announcement: Belgian advisory Council Intellectual Property Belgium 16 March 2015 Mon, 03/16/2015 (All day) The Minister of Economic Affairs has just announced the new composition of the Belgian advisory Council for Intellectual Property . Amongst the experts, were appointed: Fabienne Brison and Benoit Michaux (both for the copyright and related rights section), and Liesbeth Weynants (for the industrial property section).

The Minister of Economic Affairs has just announced the new composition of the Belgian advisory Council for Intellectual Property .

Amongst the experts, were appointed : Fabienne Brison and Benoit Michaux (both for the copyright and related rights section), and Liesbeth Weynants (for the industrial property section).

The Council includes experts, sector, industry and government representatives.

Its main task is to advise the Minister responsible for intellectual property, in all matters relating to this field.

2015-03-25 Press
Ja 742 Important victory for Russian state company FKP Soyuzplodoimport and its TM rights on world renowned vodka brand Stolichnaya. 25 March 2015 Wed, 03/25/2015 (All day) Hoyng Monegier has achieved an important victory before the Rotterdam District Court in a dispute concerning the trademark rights of the world renowned vodka brand Stolichnaya.

The long-awaited end judgment comes after years of heavy court battles. The case has been running since 2003, and debates whether the rights to use the world renowned vodka brand Stolichnaya belong to Russia or to Russian business man Yuri Shefler and his company Spirits International – based in Rotterdam – the Netherlands. Shefler alleges that he acquired the brand after a privatisation following the breakup of the Soviet Union.

An interlocutory judgment was rendered in 2006 by the Rotterdam district court and although favorable to the plaintiff - the Russian state company FKP Soyuzplodoimport, the latter could not yet rely on it as it was not an end judgment. Spirits International seized the opportunity to appeal to the interlocutory judgment, but the appeal was denied. Last year the Dutch Supreme Court dismissed Spirits’ complaints, after which the main proceedings resumed.

The end judgment in the main proceedings was rendered on Wednesday 25th of March. The Rotterdam district court ruled that, Spirits International should hand over the trademark rights to the Russian Federation or pay a penalty of EUR 100,000 plus an additional daily fine of EUR 50,000.

The ruling covers the Stolichnaya, Moskovskaya and Na Zdorovye brands, and also specifies that Spirits International is no longer allowed to say its vodka is "Russian" or produced in Russia, nor to sell Stolichnaya and Moskovskaya vodka in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

The decision – which could still be appealed - sets a precedent for other cases pending worldwide.

The Russian Federation is represented by Joris van Manen and Laura Fresco.

Read more:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-25/stolichnaya-belongs-to...

http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL6N0WR5A020150325?sp=true

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/dutch-court-rules-stolich...

http://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2015/03/spi-loses-stolichnaya-trademar...

http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2015/03/stoli-belongs-to-russian-state-...

2015-03-30 Trademarks
Ja 742 Important victory for Russian state company FKP Soyuzplodoimport and its TM rights on world renowned vodka brand Stolichnaya. 25 March 2015 Wed, 03/25/2015 (All day) Hoyng Monegier has achieved an important victory before the Rotterdam District Court in a dispute concerning the trademark rights of the world renowned vodka brand Stolichnaya.

The long-awaited end judgment comes after years of heavy court battles. The case has been running since 2003, and debates whether the rights to use the world renowned vodka brand Stolichnaya belong to Russia or to Russian business man Yuri Shefler and his company Spirits International – based in Rotterdam – the Netherlands. Shefler alleges that he acquired the brand after a privatisation following the breakup of the Soviet Union.

An interlocutory judgment was rendered in 2006 by the Rotterdam district court and although favorable to the plaintiff - the Russian state company FKP Soyuzplodoimport, the latter could not yet rely on it as it was not an end judgment. Spirits International seized the opportunity to appeal to the interlocutory judgment, but the appeal was denied. Last year the Dutch Supreme Court dismissed Spirits’ complaints, after which the main proceedings resumed.

The end judgment in the main proceedings was rendered on Wednesday 25th of March. The Rotterdam district court ruled that, Spirits International should hand over the trademark rights to the Russian Federation or pay a penalty of EUR 100,000 plus an additional daily fine of EUR 50,000.

The ruling covers the Stolichnaya, Moskovskaya and Na Zdorovye brands, and also specifies that Spirits International is no longer allowed to say its vodka is "Russian" or produced in Russia, nor to sell Stolichnaya and Moskovskaya vodka in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

The decision – which could still be appealed - sets a precedent for other cases pending worldwide.

The Russian Federation is represented by Joris van Manen and Laura Fresco.

Read more:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-25/stolichnaya-belongs-to...

http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL6N0WR5A020150325?sp=true

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/dutch-court-rules-stolich...

http://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2015/03/spi-loses-stolichnaya-trademar...

http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2015/03/stoli-belongs-to-russian-state-...

2015-03-30 Press
Ja 743 Hoyng Monegier announces 3 promotions to Counsel 1 April 2015 Wed, 04/01/2015 (All day) Hoyng Monegier is delighted to announce the promotion of Laura Fresco, Judith Krens and Christopher Pierce to Counsel as of 1 April 2015. All three joined Hoyng Monegier’s Amsterdam office in 2011.

Hoyng Monegier is delighted to announce the promotion of Laura Fresco, Judith Krens and Christopher Pierce to Counsel as of 1 April 2015. All three joined Hoyng Monegier’s Amsterdam office in 2011.

Laura Fresco practices in all areas of intellectual property law, with a particular focus on trademarks, designs, copyright, advertising database law and cross-border litigation.

She advises clients in all sectors, with a particular expertise in the fields of fashion, electronics and food and beverages.

Laura holds a master’s degree in IP law.

Although her primary focus is on (international) patent litigation, Judith Krens has considerable experience in other areas of IP law such as trademark law, copyright law and IT law (both litigation and advisory / contractual work) . 

Judith’s practice mainly comprises the fields of pharmaceuticals, chemicals, medical devices, and biotech where she has a lot of experience with cross-border / multi-jurisdictional patent litigation.

Judith holds a master’s degree in chemistry.

An expert in patent procurement and oppositions, Christopher Pierce is particularly active in applying for European patents and in managing international patent portfolios. He advises on matters of patent validity and infringement.

Christopher has extensive experience in the field of chemistry with a focus on cosmetics, catalysts and polymers, and in the field of mechanical engineering including consumer goods.

Christopher qualified as a British Patent Attorney in 2006 and as a European Patent Attorney in 2008 and holds a ‘Chemistry with Patent Law’ BSc.

Willem Hoyng, Managing Partner of Hoyng Monegier: "These promotions confirm the commitment and hard work of Laura, Judith and Chris and their considerable contribution to Hoyng Monegier’s success. On behalf of the partnership, I would like to congratulate them on this achievement.”

2015-04-01 Press
Ja 744 Important victory for Seiko Epson Corporation in dispute for patent infringement against Conzumo Servicios Online, S.L. 8 April 2015 Wed, 04/08/2015 (All day) Hoyng Monegier has obtained a favorable decision on behalf of the Japanese manufacturer of printers and printing accessories, Seiko Epson Corporation.

Hoyng Monegier has obtained a favorable decision on behalf of the Japanese manufacturer of printers and printing accessories, Seiko Epson Corporation.

Mercantile Court no. 10 of Madrid, Spain, has issued a first instance decision declaring that the offer and sale, by the Spanish company Conzumo Servicios Online, S.L., of ink cartridges compatible with Epson’s printers, directly infringes several patents owned by Epson, and that the offer and sale of replacement ink tanks for those compatible cartridges is an act of indirect infringement of the same patents.

The decision dismisses all the defensive arguments raised by Conzumo and accepts all the petitions by Epson, including the order to cease in all the infringing acts violating Epson’s rights, to cease in the import, distribution, offer and commercialization of any ink cartridges infringing Epson’s rights, including all the specific references included in the claim, to seize and destroy any remaining infringing cartridges and ink tanks, to pay an undisclosed amount as compensation of damages, to pay the costs of the procedure, and to publish the heading and decisive part of the judgment in the two main Spanish newspapers (El País and El Mundo). The decision also contains the express declaration that Conzumo has been acting on bad faith, in light of several actions carried out during the proceedings.

Seiko Epson Corporation was represented by Jose Antonio Sanmartín.

2015-04-09 Telecoms & Electronics
Ja 744 Important victory for Seiko Epson Corporation in dispute for patent infringement against Conzumo Servicios Online, S.L. 8 April 2015 Wed, 04/08/2015 (All day) Hoyng Monegier has obtained a favorable decision on behalf of the Japanese manufacturer of printers and printing accessories, Seiko Epson Corporation.

Hoyng Monegier has obtained a favorable decision on behalf of the Japanese manufacturer of printers and printing accessories, Seiko Epson Corporation.

Mercantile Court no. 10 of Madrid, Spain, has issued a first instance decision declaring that the offer and sale, by the Spanish company Conzumo Servicios Online, S.L., of ink cartridges compatible with Epson’s printers, directly infringes several patents owned by Epson, and that the offer and sale of replacement ink tanks for those compatible cartridges is an act of indirect infringement of the same patents.

The decision dismisses all the defensive arguments raised by Conzumo and accepts all the petitions by Epson, including the order to cease in all the infringing acts violating Epson’s rights, to cease in the import, distribution, offer and commercialization of any ink cartridges infringing Epson’s rights, including all the specific references included in the claim, to seize and destroy any remaining infringing cartridges and ink tanks, to pay an undisclosed amount as compensation of damages, to pay the costs of the procedure, and to publish the heading and decisive part of the judgment in the two main Spanish newspapers (El País and El Mundo). The decision also contains the express declaration that Conzumo has been acting on bad faith, in light of several actions carried out during the proceedings.

Seiko Epson Corporation was represented by Jose Antonio Sanmartín.

2015-04-09 Patent Litigation
Ja 744 Important victory for Seiko Epson Corporation in dispute for patent infringement against Conzumo Servicios Online, S.L. 8 April 2015 Wed, 04/08/2015 (All day) Hoyng Monegier has obtained a favorable decision on behalf of the Japanese manufacturer of printers and printing accessories, Seiko Epson Corporation.

Hoyng Monegier has obtained a favorable decision on behalf of the Japanese manufacturer of printers and printing accessories, Seiko Epson Corporation.

Mercantile Court no. 10 of Madrid, Spain, has issued a first instance decision declaring that the offer and sale, by the Spanish company Conzumo Servicios Online, S.L., of ink cartridges compatible with Epson’s printers, directly infringes several patents owned by Epson, and that the offer and sale of replacement ink tanks for those compatible cartridges is an act of indirect infringement of the same patents.

The decision dismisses all the defensive arguments raised by Conzumo and accepts all the petitions by Epson, including the order to cease in all the infringing acts violating Epson’s rights, to cease in the import, distribution, offer and commercialization of any ink cartridges infringing Epson’s rights, including all the specific references included in the claim, to seize and destroy any remaining infringing cartridges and ink tanks, to pay an undisclosed amount as compensation of damages, to pay the costs of the procedure, and to publish the heading and decisive part of the judgment in the two main Spanish newspapers (El País and El Mundo). The decision also contains the express declaration that Conzumo has been acting on bad faith, in light of several actions carried out during the proceedings.

Seiko Epson Corporation was represented by Jose Antonio Sanmartín.

2015-04-09 Press
Ja 745 DIA Euromeeting 2015 13-15 April 2015 Paris Tue, 04/14/2015 (All day) Carla Schoonderbeek will be co-chairing Session 1205 “Off label use and medication error-into the unknown?” DIA is an independent, nonprofit organization. The DIA EuroMeeting 2015 is unique in presenting a microcosm of the entire drug development process ranging from the policy environment to market uptake and regulation. 2015-04-13 Events
Ja 746 C5’s 14th international forum on Pharmaceutical Patent Term Extensions 22-23 June 2015 Munich Tue, 06/23/2015 (All day) Carla Schoonderbeek will be lecturing “How to secure and extend data exclusivity while complying with transparency rules”. 2015-04-13 Events
Ja 753 Engels Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court 2015 16 July 2015 Munich, Germany Thu, 07/16/2015 (All day) Hoyng Monegier is proud to participate as knowledge partner in Premier Cercle's upcoming Unitary Patent & Unified Court Conference, to be held on July 16, 2015, in the European Patent Office in Munich.

Hoyng Monegier is proud to participate as knowledge partner in Premier Cercle's upcoming Unitary Patent & Unified Court Conference, to be held on July 16, 2015, in the European Patent Office in Munich.

Following the success of its first and second editions in 2013 and 2014, the Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court Conference is being established as an annual premium event and leading conference on the latest advancements in the UP & UPC with high-profile participants from all over Europe and North America.

On Thursday 16 July 2015, the Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court conference will be held for its third inception, for the first time at the European Patent Office in Munich, Germany. Besides enabling participants to learn all the recent and latest advancements on the UP & UPC: EPO Select and Preparatory Committees status and reports, Appointments and training of judges; Impacts of the costs/fees/renewals scheme; Rules of Procedure amendments and progress; UPC Agreement ratification process checklist; New IP strategies for patent applicants, licensing issues, patent litigation and settlements, etc.. through high-level keynotes presentations and panels, this unique event will also provide fantastic networking opportunities with more than 20 speakers and 120 professionals including IP, EPO, EU representatives, General Counsels, Chief IP Officers, judges, patent attorneys, industrials, corporate executives, business federations, IP related associations and more…

Confirmed speakers include amongst others,

  • Benoît Battistelli – President of the European Patent Office,
  • Alain Girardet - Adviser, Presiding Judge of Chamber 4 at the French Supreme Court of Judicature,
  • Cornelis Schüller - Group Head of Patents, Assistant Vice-President at Nestec SA,
  • Dr. Roya Ghafele - Director and Member of the Board at Oxfirst Ltd,
  • Mrs. Justice Macken - former Judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union,
  • Prof. Dr. Christian Osterrieth - Honorary Professor for Patent Law at the University of Constance,
  • Francesco Macchetta - Director Intellectual Property at Bracco Imaging SpA,
  • Karl-Georg Aspacher - Division IP Counsel at Siemens AG,
  • Hon. Dieter Brändle – President of the Swiss Federal Patent Court,
  • Catriona Hammer - Senior IP Counsel at GE HEALTHCARE,
  • Kevin Jakel - Chief Executive Officer at Unified Patents, UNIFIED PATENTS,
  • Robert van Peursem - Advocate-General at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands,
  • Paul van Beukering – Ministry of Economic Affairs of The Netherlands,
  • Margot Fröhlinger - Principal Director of Patent Law and Multilateral Affairs of the European Patent Office,
  • Luboš Knoth - Vice Chair at the EPO Select Committee,
  • Ulrike Voß - Presiding Judge, Patent Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Dusseldorf.

For more information about the speakers and registration: http://www.premiercercle.com/index.php?item=event-details&ide=208

2015-05-08 Events
Ja 754 IP Summit 2015 3 and 4 December 2015 Berlin, Germany Thu, 12/03/2015 (All day) HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER is proud to participate as knowledge partner in Premier Cercle's renowned Pan-European Intellectual Property Summit 2015, which will take place in Berlin on Thursday and Friday, December 3 & 4, 2015.

HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER is proud to participate as knowledge partner in Premier Cercle's renowned Pan-European Intellectual Property Summit 2015, which will take place in Berlin on Thursday and Friday, December 3 & 4, 2015.

For the tenth edition of this successful event, more than 100 speakers and 500 participants will gather for a two-day-conference aiming at listening and discussing with high-level speakers, topics such as Challenges in the field of Patents, Trademarks and Copyright, the Best IP Strategies and the future of IP, Unitary Patent, the Latest Development on gTLDs, Copyright, Litigation, Innovation, amongst others.

For more information about this event and registration:
http://www.premiercercle.com/index.php?item=event-details&action=program&ide=206

2015-05-08 Events
Ja 850 FD: "New European patent law impetus to merger of top-tier lawyers" 1 June 2015 Mon, 06/01/2015 (All day) The renowned law firm Hoyng Monegier from Amsterdam will merge with a German industry partner. It concerns Reimann Osterrieth Köhler Haft (ROKH), which is specialized in intellectual property law and patent disputes, like Hoyng Monegier.

The article below has been published in Het Financieele Dagblad of June 1, 2015.

The renowned law firm Hoyng Monegier from Amsterdam will merge with a German industry partner. It concerns Reimann Osterrieth Köhler Haft (ROKH), which is specialized in intellectual property law and patent disputes, like Hoyng Monegier.

With this merger, the firms are ahead of a big change in the European patent landscape. Almost all EU member states have subscribed to the establishment of a European court that has cross-border jurisdiction in patent infringement disputes.

This is a niche in the legal market, albeit an important one, given the increasing importance of technology and technological breakthroughs in society. Presently, companies must turn to courts in individual member states. This confronts them with a patchwork of legislation. The so-called Unified Patent Court (UPC) will bring an end to this when it opens for business in 2017, as is expected.

In an interview with FD, managing partner Willem Hoyng calls the leap his firm is making ‘a strategic choice’. ‘Half of all European patent disputes take place in Germany. It is therefore important to also be represented there.’

Hoyng Monegier, with offices in the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Spain, was already cooperating with ROKH in cross-border patent matters. The Dutch-German merger will bring together 150 employees, 36 of whom are partners. The annual turnover of the new pan-European firm will be approximately €45 million, according to Hoyng.

‘The Netherlands should have a leading position in patent law’

Willem Hoyng criticizes lack of political will to play a central role in European patent law.

There is no shortage of large clients at Hoyng Monegier. In the untidy office of lawyer Willem Hoyng on the 31st floor of the Rembrandt Tower in Amsterdam a can of Red Bull and a pack of Ariël laundry detergent are almost carelessly arranged.

Hoyng (69) is considered a sage in the legal profession when it comes to intellectual property law. Not long ago, he acted for Procter & Gamble in a contentious matter: would the American concern with its Ariël product infringe its rival Unilever's patents for pods with liquid detergent. For Red Bull, his firm protected the trademark of the Austrian manufacturer of sweet energy drinks in the Benelux.

While large international companies know how to find Hoyng Monegier, Hoyng feels the need to make a further step with his firm. Today, he announces a merger with the German firm Reimann Osterrieth Köhler Haft (ROKH). The new firm will bear the name Hoyng ROKH Monegier.

The merger is closely related to a landmark change in the European legal system for the resolution of international patent disputes. For decades, there has been talk in Europe about unitary patent law. Since 2013, there is a treaty that provides for the establishment of a Unified Patent Court (UPC). ‘This will allow dealing with civil cases on a federal level for the first time in Europe’, explains Hoyng. ‘Actually, this is much like how things go in the United States.’

In practice, in one and a half year’s time, parties will no longer need to litigate in multiple member states when they believe their patents are infringed. A decision of a central court in Paris, Munich and London, or a local division in e.g. The Hague, will be valid in 25 EU member states that will probably join the UPC.

Only Spain, Poland and Croatia have indicated that they will not participate. Because of the European approach, litigation will be less costly and time-consuming.

According to Hoyng, another breakthrough is that English appears to be accepted as the most important language in the new legal system. Even France, an avid protector of its own language, has accepted that English may be used as a procedural language apart from French.

That language no longer needs to be a barrier also becomes clear from the introduction of a single European patent, also known as a Unitary Patent. At present, a European patent is still a bundle of patents that was applied for and translated in every EU member state. In the new structure, a patent application in English, German or French will suffice, which is by the way the reason that Italy opposed the initiative for a long time and Spain is still not prepared to join the new system.

It is unclear when the UPC will hear its first cases. Various member states, including The Netherlands, still have to ratify the treaty. In addition, judges must be selected that will hear cases in the internationally composed panels of the UPC. Hoyng expects that it will not be before 2017. ‘And it may go wrong altogether if the UK leaves the EU.’

Hoyng, who is closely involved with the establishment of the UPC, believes his firm should adapt. The importance of a decision increases, because it has a much larger territorial scope. Law firms will therefore have to offer larger teams for clients. Those clients in fact demand this.
At the same time, there will be more room for clever maneuvers. Companies may choose to keep old patents outside of the new system, especially when they think a weak patent may be wiped off the table with a single blow. That also requires specialist knowledge. That is what Hoyng has been aiming for since 2003, when he left De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, a legal juggernaut of which intellectual property was only a small part, with a number of other lawyers.

‘We are not merging with ROKH to grow’, says Hoyng. ‘We remain a boutique. But we want to be able to litigate well everywhere. Therefore, it is good to join forces with a firm that knows the local customs.’

While Hoyng Monegier seems to outgrow The Netherlands, Hoyng can still be bothered about the chances the government is wasting to make The Netherlands an important place for the resolution of patent disputes. According to him, our country has a reputation to live up to, ‘but it seems that political will is lacking right now’.

The Netherlands still has not ratified the establishment treaty of the UPC. It is also not very motivated to push forward The Hague, its own international legal capital, as a local division alongside the central courts in Munich, Paris and London.
‘That is very disappointing. The Netherlands should be leading with a European patent court, especially now we are always boasting about innovation. Germany is already busy promoting its court. We are in danger of losing the battle.’

Hoyng says he is not preaching to his own parish. ‘You almost see them thinking at the Ministry of Economic Affairs: that fellow Hoyng is a lawyer, he wants to make money. But if the government does not take a pro-active position, it runs the risk of losing a lot of expertise.’

Joining of forces

The merger between lawyer's boutiques Hoyng Monegier and Reimann Osterrieth Köhler Haft (ROKH) will unite 150 employees, of whom 36 are partners. The annual turnover will be about €45 million, says managing partner Willem Hoyng. Two thirds of the partners come from the Dutch part, but Hoyng emphasizes this is not a takeover. No money is paid and Hoyng will not control the German part as a CEO. The managing partner of ROKH will soon discuss ongoing matters every Tuesday in a teleconference with the offices in Amsterdam, Madrid, Paris and Brussels.
Hoyng Monegier was already cooperating with ROKH. Three years ago, the partners of ROKH were still a bit hesitant about a merger, but that changed as a result of the upcoming changes in European procedural law for patent disputes.

This document is a translation of an article written by Jeroen Segenhout, journalist. It was first published in Het Financieele Dagblad of June 1, 2015. The copyrights relating to this article are held by Het Financieele Dagblad.

2015-08-17 Press
Ja 852 HOYNG MONEGIER and REIMANN OSTERRIETH KÖHLER HAFT become HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER 1 June 2015 Mon, 06/01/2015 (All day) Top-tier IP-boutiques HOYNG MONEGIER and REIMANN OSTERRIETH KÖHLER HAFT (ROKH) are joining forces and will become HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER

Top-tier IP-boutiques HOYNG MONEGIER and REIMANN OSTERRIETH KÖHLER HAFT (ROKH) are joining forces and will become HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER

File 1611File 1611

This is the result of a proven, long-standing, and valued working relationship between the two law firms. We will be operational in the course of 2015.

HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER will have offices in Amsterdam, Brussels, Düsseldorf, Madrid, Mannheim (branch office) and Paris. Our experienced and motivated team consists of about 100 IP professionals, 36 of whom are partners.

In all of its locations HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER will service the needs of clients in the field of intellectual property law, including patents and trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights and design rights, as well as in related fields, such as pharmaceutical regulatory law.

A particular strength of HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER is cross-border intellectual property litigation.

In patent law, the focus of HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER lies in particular on the technical areas of electronics and telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, automotive and optics, with decades of proven expertise. HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER will also serve all other technical fields, including mechanics, electrical engineering and chemicals. With its highly international orientation, enlarged European presence and increased strength and depth, we are well placed for representing clients before the future Unified Patent Court (UPC). The Amsterdam office also provides patent prosecution services.

In addition, in the fields of trademark, copyright and design right law, HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER offers a complete range of services relating to the enforcement, exploitation, assessment and protection of these rights, always at the forefront of new developments. Given the full harmonization of European trademark and design right law we are ideally placed to serve the needs of our clients. HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER advises and represents its clients across a broad range of sectors including food & beverages, pharmaceuticals, industrial design, media, entertainment & publishing.

Finally HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER offers its clients full service also in IP-related fields such as pharmaceutical regulatory law, competition law, unfair competition law, media law, advertising law, and IP related contracts.

"With the joining of forces of two top-tier IP boutiques and the enlarged footprint in the strongest European IP markets, we aim to be the top IP player in Europe", says Willem Hoyng, founding partner of HOYNG MONEGIER. "We are looking forward to bundling our experience and competence with ROKH, so as to offer our clients the best possible IP services".

"We founded REIMANN OSTERRIETH KÖHLER HAFT in 2004 because we felt the need to change our environment at the time to be able to work more successfully. Above all, we wanted to be a highly specialised IP-boutique, as this appeared to be the model most convincing to our clients and us personally. The fact that we have meanwhile become one of the top law firms for IP in the most important legal market in Europe confirms that our forecast was right", says Dr. Thomas W. Reimann, founding partner of ROKH. "Today, we are happy to have found a strong partner in HOYNG MONEGIER, a firm that shares our values and goals, allowing us to become a European player in IP law to successfully shape the future with us for our clients."

About REIMANN OSTERRIETH KÖHLER HAFT (ROKH):
REIMANN OSTERRIETH KÖHLER HAFT (ROKH) is a law firm specialising exclusively in the field of intellectual property law, with many years of experience in particular in infringement and validity proceedings relating to patents, know-how and trade secrets, as well as in trademark and design infringement, competition law and copyright law proceedings. This forms the basis for its extensive litigation work before all relevant German Courts including the Federal Supreme Court, the German and European Patent Office and the European Court of Justice. www.rokh-ip.com


To know more about this or if you have any question, please contact

Willem Hoyng (Amsterdam)
+31 20 592 4415
hoyngw@hoyngmonegier.com

Carl de Meyer (Brussels)
+32 2 740 00 03
demeyerc@hoyngmonegier.com

Christine Kanz (Düsseldorf)
+49 (0) 211 550 22 320
Christine.Kanz@rokh-ip.com

Luis Fernández-Novoa (Madrid)
+34 91 521 85 86
fernandeznovoal@hoyngmonegier.com

Sophie Micallef (Paris)
+33 1 40 69 56 78
micallefs@hoyngmonegier.com

2015-08-17 Press
Ja 853 Landmark database rights decision: protection for financial products (options) 22 July 2015 Wed, 07/22/2015 (All day) Hoyng Monegier has helped Euronext secure a court ruling that prevents its competitors from using Euronext's intellectual property in running their own, competing, exchanges. In particular, the Court has recognised that Euronext enjoys database rights on the option contract listed on its own platform, and has enjoined competitors from copying those products. In addition, the Court has awarded Euronext's trademark and misleading advertising claims. More....

Hoyng Monegier has helped Euronext secure a court ruling that prevents its competitors from using Euronext's intellectual property in running their own, competing, exchanges. In particular, the Court has recognised that Euronext enjoys database rights on the option contract listed on its own platform, and has enjoined competitors from copying those products. In addition, the Court has awarded Euronext's trademark and misleading advertising claims. Click here to read FT article.
More....

On Wednesday 22 July, the District Court of the Hague handed down its decision on the merits in the dispute between Euronext and the rival exchange The Order Machine (TOM) and internet broker BinckBank. The decision follows on the earlier victory in interim proceedings, reported on here: http://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/nl/article/20130730/nyse-euronext-wins-trademark-dispute

Euronext is the original Dutch stock and options exchange. It not only runs a trading platform, but also designs and introduces various of the financial products traded there, such as option contracts on various underlying values. One of the innovative products of Euronext is the AEX-index and the AEX options, the first stock-index and index-options of Europe. Euronext invests substantially in its product portfolio.

TOM is an alternative exchange, where both stocks and options can be traded. TOM was founded by, inter alia, the internet broker BinckBank as an alternative venue for the transactions of its clients. The options traded on TOM are not Euronext options, but are a different contract issued by TOM itself. Customers of Binck can no longer trade in Euronext options.

In deciding what options to offer, TOM simply copied the entire catalog of options offered by Euronext (the list of series). These copied contracts were subsequently offered by Binck to the public under the same tickers as the original Euronext contracts.

Database rights and trademark infringement

Most fundamentally, the Court established that Euronext’s collection of option contracts constitutes a database in which Euronext made a substantial investment. This database is protected by sui generis database rights. This is the first time that a Court establishes that financial products are protected by way of database rights.

The Court has ordered TOM and BinckBank to stop their infringement of Euronext options database. From now on, TOM and BinckBank will have to run its options business independently, without leaching of the catalog of products created by Euronext.

In line with the preliminary decision, the Court has also held that BinckBank infringes Euronext’s trademark by offering TOM-options under tickers that are identical Euronext’s trademarked tickers.

Misleading advertising

Euronext is entitled to damages arising from the infringing and misleading practices of BinckBank and TOM. The quantum of these damages will be determined in separate proceedings.

Euronext was represented by Joris van Manen and Peter van Schijndel of the Amsterdam office. The full text of the judgment can be read here: http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:8312 (Dutch).

2015-08-17 Press
Ja 1073 Duits Christian Osterrieth, Patentrecht 5. Auflage, 2015 Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Osterrieth-Patentrecht/productview.aspx?product=13814524 2015-09-23 Publications
Ja 1231 Trademark judges about Trademark law 11 November 2015 Den Hague, the Netherlands Wed, 11/11/2015 (All day) Marlou van de Braak will moderate a session on Practical Aspects of IP Litigation with Robert van Peursem of the Dutch Supreme Court 2015-09-25 Events
Ja 1231 Trademark judges about Trademark law 11 November 2015 Den Hague, the Netherlands Wed, 11/11/2015 (All day) Marlou van de Braak will moderate a session on Practical Aspects of IP Litigation with Robert van Peursem of the Dutch Supreme Court 2015-09-25 Trademark Litigation
Ja 1232 Spaans Christian Osterrieth, Patent Law 5th edition 2015 Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Osterrieth-Patentrecht/productview.aspx?product=13814524 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1233 Engels Christian Osterrieth, Patent Law 5th edition 2015 Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Osterrieth-Patentrecht/productview.aspx?product=13814524 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1235 Frans Christian Osterrieth, Patent Law 5th edition 2015 Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Osterrieth-Patentrecht/productview.aspx?product=13814524 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1236 Nederlands Christian Osterrieth, Patent Law 5th edition 2015 Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Osterrieth-Patentrecht/productview.aspx?product=13814524 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1237 Duits Hahn/Breuer, Anmerkung zu LG Düsseldorf, Az. 2 a O 250/14 - Ausstellen auf internationaler Leitmesse im Inland GRUR-Prax 2015, 187 Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1238 Duits Hahn in: Cepl/Voß, Prozesskommentar zum Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, §§ 484 – 494a (Kommentierung des Besichtigungsverfahrens) C.H Beck (2015) Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Cepl-Voss-Prozesskommentar-Gewerblichen-Rechtsschutz/productview.aspx?product=12001092 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1239 Engels Hahn in: Cepl/Voß, Procedural Commentary for Intellectual Property, §§ 484 – 494a (Commentary of German inspection proceedings) C.H Beck (2015) Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Cepl-Voss-Prozesskommentar-Gewerblichen-Rechtsschutz/productview.aspx?product=12001092 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1240 Spaans Hahn in: Cepl/Voß, Procedural Commentary for Intellectual Property, §§ 484 – 494a (Commentary of German inspection proceedings) C.H Beck (2015) Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Cepl-Voss-Prozesskommentar-Gewerblichen-Rechtsschutz/productview.aspx?product=12001092 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1241 Frans Hahn in: Cepl/Voß, Procedural Commentary for Intellectual Property, §§ 484 – 494a (Commentary of German inspection proceedings) C.H Beck (2015) Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Cepl-Voss-Prozesskommentar-Gewerblichen-Rechtsschutz/productview.aspx?product=12001092 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1242 Nederlands Hahn in: Cepl/Voß, Procedural Commentary for Intellectual Property, §§ 484 – 494a (Commentary of German inspection proceedings) C.H Beck (2015) Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Cepl-Voss-Prozesskommentar-Gewerblichen-Rechtsschutz/productview.aspx?product=12001092 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1243 Duits Haft in: Cepl/Voß, Prozesskommentar zum Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, §§ 883-894 (Kommentierung zur Zwangsvollstreckung) C.H Beck (2015) Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Cepl-Voss-Prozesskommentar-Gewerblichen-Rechtsschutz/productview.aspx?product=12001092 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1244 Engels Haft in: Cepl/Voß, Procedural Commentary for Intellectual Property, §§ 883-894 (Commentary of enforcement proceedings) C.H Beck (2015) Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Cepl-Voss-Prozesskommentar-Gewerblichen-Rechtsschutz/productview.aspx?product=12001092 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1245 Spaans Haft in: Cepl/Voß, Procedural Commentary for Intellectual Property, §§ 883-894 (Commentary of enforcement proceedings) C.H Beck (2015) Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Cepl-Voss-Prozesskommentar-Gewerblichen-Rechtsschutz/productview.aspx?product=12001092 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1246 Frans Haft in: Cepl/Voß, Procedural Commentary for Intellectual Property, §§ 883-894 (Commentary of enforcement proceedings) C.H Beck (2015) Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Cepl-Voss-Prozesskommentar-Gewerblichen-Rechtsschutz/productview.aspx?product=12001092 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1247 Nederlands Haft in: Cepl/Voß, Procedural Commentary for Intellectual Property, §§ 883-894 (Commentary of enforcement proceedings) C.H Beck (2015) Thu, 01/01/2015 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Cepl-Voss-Prozesskommentar-Gewerblichen-Rechtsschutz/productview.aspx?product=12001092 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1248 Kanz/Gerhardt: What are the risks of second medical use and dosing regimes in pharmaceutical patenting? Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst, Volume 3, Issue 5, September 2014, p. 481 ff. Wed, 01/01/2014 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1249 Hahn, A powerful tool (Preliminary injunction proceedings in Germany) The Patent Lawyer (2014) Wed, 01/01/2014 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1250 Duits Hahn, Anmerkung zu BGH, Az. X ZB 19/12 – Kommunikationsrouter GRUR-Prax 2014, 458 Wed, 01/01/2014 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1251 Engels Hahn, Judgement Review Federal Court of Justice (BGH), X ZB 19/12 – Kommunikationsrouter GRUR-Prax 2014, 458 Wed, 01/01/2014 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1252 Spaans Hahn, Judgement Review Federal Court of Justice (BGH), X ZB 19/12 – Kommunikationsrouter GRUR-Prax 2014, 458 Wed, 01/01/2014 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1253 Frans Hahn, Judgement Review Federal Court of Justice (BGH), X ZB 19/12 – Kommunikationsrouter GRUR-Prax 2014, 458 Wed, 01/01/2014 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1254 Nederlands Hahn, Judgement Review Federal Court of Justice (BGH), X ZB 19/12 – Kommunikationsrouter GRUR-Prax 2014, 458 Wed, 01/01/2014 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1255 Köhler/Gelke, in: Nicholas Fox (ed.), Intellectual Property in Electronics and Software: A Global Guide to Rights and Their Applications Germany, August 2013 Tue, 01/01/2013 (All day) http://www.globelawandbusiness.com/IPES/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1256 Duits Hahn/Richter, Patent- und Gebrauchsmusterverletzung, BWV 3. Auflage, 2013 Tue, 01/01/2013 (All day) http://bwv.verlag-online.eu/shop/bwv/apply/viewdetail/id/4994/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1257 Duits „Nach der BGH-Entscheidung ‘MPEG-2-Videosignalcodierung‘: Verschärfte Anforderungen an mittelbare Patentverletzung“ GRUR-Prax 2013, 261 Tue, 01/01/2013 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1258 Köhler, Unitary Patent: Complexity or simplification Contratto e impresa Europa, Luglio-Dicembre 2012, p. 557-568 Sun, 01/01/2012 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1259 Frans Köhler, A la recherché d'une protection juste des inventions: le point sur la contrefaçon en Allemagne Propriétés intellectuelles no. 44 (Juillet 2012), p. 371-374 Sun, 01/01/2012 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1260 Duits Hahn, Anmerkung zu BGH, Beschluss vom 20.12.2011 – Installiereinrichtung II GRUR-Prax 2012, 167 Sun, 01/01/2012 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1261 Duits Haft in: Haft/Nack/Lunze/Heusch/Schohe/Joachim, "Unterlassugnsgebote in Fällen der Verletzung von Rechten des Geistigen Eigentums", Q219 der AIPPI GRUR Int. 2011, 927 Sat, 01/01/2011 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/219/GR219germany_de.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1262 Engels Haft in: Haft/Nack/Lunze/Heusch/Schohe/Joachim, "Injungtions in cases of infringement of IPRs", AIPPI Q219 GRUR Int. 2011, 927 Sat, 01/01/2011 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/219/GR219germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1263 Spaans Haft in: Haft/Nack/Lunze/Heusch/Schohe/Joachim, "Injungtions in cases of infringement of IPRs", AIPPI Q219 GRUR Int. 2011, 927 Sat, 01/01/2011 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/219/GR219germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1264 Frans Haft in: Haft/Nack/Lunze/Heusch/Schohe/Joachim, "Injungtions in cases of infringement of IPRs", AIPPI Q219 GRUR Int. 2011, 927 Sat, 01/01/2011 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/219/GR219germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1265 Nederlands Haft in: Haft/Nack/Lunze/Heusch/Schohe/Joachim, "Injungtions in cases of infringement of IPRs", AIPPI Q219 GRUR Int. 2011, 927 Sat, 01/01/2011 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/219/GR219germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1266 Duits Reimann/Hahn, Orange-Book – Ratgeber oder Buch mit sieben Siegeln? Festschrift für Wolfgang von Meibom, Köln 2010, 373-494 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/festschrift-fuer-wolfgang-von-meibom,978-3-452-27388-8,carl-heymanns-verlag,47238/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1267 Duits Thörner, Das Sortenrecht als Gegenstand wissenschaftlicher Auseinandersetzung. Zugleich Besprechung des Handbuchs « Deutsches und europäisches Sortenschutzrecht » von Herbert Leßmann Würtenberger ZGE 2011, S. 343-351 Sat, 01/01/2011 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1268 Duits Osterrieth in: Handbuch des Fachanwalts für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz (Einführung Patentrecht) 2. Auflage, 2011 Sat, 01/01/2011 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/handbuch-des-fachanwalts-gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,978-3-452-27414-4,carl-heymanns-verlag,45502/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1269 Engels Osterrieth in: Handbuch des Fachanwalts für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz (Introduction Patent Law) 2nd edition 2011 Sat, 01/01/2011 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/handbuch-des-fachanwalts-gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,978-3-452-27414-4,carl-heymanns-verlag,45502/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1270 Spaans Osterrieth in: Handbuch des Fachanwalts für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz (Introduction Patent Law) 2nd edition 2011 Sat, 01/01/2011 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/handbuch-des-fachanwalts-gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,978-3-452-27414-4,carl-heymanns-verlag,45502/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1271 Frans Osterrieth in: Handbuch des Fachanwalts für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz (Introduction Patent Law) 2nd edition 2011 Sat, 01/01/2011 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/handbuch-des-fachanwalts-gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,978-3-452-27414-4,carl-heymanns-verlag,45502/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1272 Nederlands Osterrieth in: Handbuch des Fachanwalts für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz (Introduction Patent Law) 2nd edition 2011 Sat, 01/01/2011 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/handbuch-des-fachanwalts-gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,978-3-452-27414-4,carl-heymanns-verlag,45502/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1273 Duits Osterrieth in: Benkard, EPÜ Europäisches Patentübereinkommen, Kommentierung von Artikel 64, 66 und 70 EPÜ 2. Auflage 2010 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) www.beck-shop.de/Benkard-Europ%C3%A4isches-Patent%C3%BCbereinkommen-EP%C3%9C-Kommentar/productview.aspx?product=31908 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1274 Engels Osterrieth in: Benkard, EPC European Patent Convention, Commentary on Art. 64, 66 and 70 EPC 2nd edition 2010 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Benkard-Europaeisches-Patentuebereinkommen-EPUe/productview.aspx?product=31908 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1275 Spaans Osterrieth in: Benkard, EPC European Patent Convention, Commentary on Art. 64, 66 and 70 EPC 2nd edition 2010 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Benkard-Europaeisches-Patentuebereinkommen-EPUe/productview.aspx?product=31908 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1276 Frans Osterrieth in: Benkard, EPC European Patent Convention, Commentary on Art. 64, 66 and 70 EPC 2nd edition 2010 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Benkard-Europaeisches-Patentuebereinkommen-EPUe/productview.aspx?product=31908 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1277 Nederlands Osterrieth in: Benkard, EPC European Patent Convention, Commentary on Art. 64, 66 and 70 EPC 2nd edition 2010 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Benkard-Europaeisches-Patentuebereinkommen-EPUe/productview.aspx?product=31908 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1278 Duits Pfaff/Osterrieth, Lizenzverträge - Formularkommentar 3. Aufl., 2010 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Pfaff-Osterrieth-Lizenzvertraege/productview.aspx?product=26533 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1279 Engels Pfaff/Osterrieth, License Agreements 3rd edition 2010 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Pfaff-Osterrieth-Lizenzvertraege/productview.aspx?product=26533 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1280 Spaans Pfaff/Osterrieth, License Agreements 3rd edition 2010 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Pfaff-Osterrieth-Lizenzvertraege/productview.aspx?product=26533 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1281 Frans Pfaff/Osterrieth, License Agreements 3rd edition 2010 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Pfaff-Osterrieth-Lizenzvertraege/productview.aspx?product=26533 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1282 Nederlands Pfaff/Osterrieth, License Agreements 3rd edition 2010 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) http://www.beck-shop.de/Pfaff-Osterrieth-Lizenzvertraege/productview.aspx?product=26533 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1283 Duits Osterrieth, Vom Innovationssprung zum inkrementellen Fortschritt: Was bleibt von der "erfinderischen Tätigkeit"?, in Leible/Ohly/Zech: Wissen-Märkte-Eigentum Mohr Siebeck 2010 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) https://www.mohr.de/buch/wissen-maerkte-geistiges-eigentum-9783161503955 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1284 Duits Haft in: Ehlers/Haft/Königer, "Der Durchschnittsfachmann im Zusammenhang mit dem Erfordernis der erfinderischen Tätigkeit im Patentrecht", Q213 der AIPPI GRUR Int. 2010, 815 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/213/GR213germany_de.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1285 Engels Haft in: Ehlers/Haft/Königer, "The person skilled in the art in the context of the inventive step requirement in patent law", AIPPI Q213 GRUR Int. 2010, 815 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/213/GR213germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1287 Spaans Haft in: Ehlers/Haft/Königer, "The person skilled in the art in the context of the inventive step requirement in patent law", AIPPI Q213 GRUR Int. 2010, 815 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/213/GR213germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1288 Frans Haft in: Ehlers/Haft/Königer, "The person skilled in the art in the context of the inventive step requirement in patent law", AIPPI Q213 GRUR Int. 2010, 815 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/213/GR213germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1289 Nederlands Haft in: Ehlers/Haft/Königer, "The person skilled in the art in the context of the inventive step requirement in patent law", AIPPI Q213 GRUR Int. 2010, 815 Fri, 01/01/2010 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/213/GR213germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1290 Duits Lunze/Hessel, Überblick über die wichtigsten Änderungen durch das Gesetz zur Vereinfachung und Modernisierung des Patentrechts Mitt. 2009, 433 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1291 Engels Lunze/Hessel, Overview on the most important amendments by the Act for the Simplification and Modernization of the Patent Law Mitt. 2009, 433 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1292 Spaans Lunze/Hessel, Overview on the most important amendments by the Act for the Simplification and Modernization of the Patent Law Mitt. 2009, 433 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1293 Frans Lunze/Hessel, Overview on the most important amendments by the Act for the Simplification and Modernization of the Patent Law Mitt. 2009, 433 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1294 Nederlands Lunze/Hessel, Overview on the most important amendments by the Act for the Simplification and Modernization of the Patent Law Mitt. 2009, 433 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1295 Duits Haft in: Haft/Hacker/Baumgärtel/Grabienski/Grabinski/Heuscdh/Joachim/Kefferpütz/Kühnen/Lunze, "Grenzbeschlagnahme und andere Eingriffsmöglichkeiten der Zollbehörden gegen Verletzer", Q208 der AIPPI GRUR Int. 2009, 826 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/208/GR208germany_de.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1296 Engels Haft in: Haft/Hacker/Baumbgärtel/Grabienski/Grabinski/Heusch/Joachim/Kefferpütz/Kühnen/Lunze, "Border Measures and other means of Customs Intervention against Infringers", Q208 of AIPPI GRUR Int. 2009, 826 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/208/GR208germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1297 Spaans Haft in: Haft/Hacker/Baumbgärtel/Grabienski/Grabinski/Heusch/Joachim/Kefferpütz/Kühnen/Lunze, "Border Measures and other means of Customs Intervention against Infringers", Q208 of AIPPI GRUR Int. 2009, 826 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/208/GR208germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1298 Frans Haft in: Haft/Hacker/Baumbgärtel/Grabienski/Grabinski/Heusch/Joachim/Kefferpütz/Kühnen/Lunze, "Border Measures and other means of Customs Intervention against Infringers", Q208 of AIPPI GRUR Int. 2009, 826 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/208/GR208germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1299 Nederlands Haft in: Haft/Hacker/Baumbgärtel/Grabienski/Grabinski/Heusch/Joachim/Kefferpütz/Kühnen/Lunze, "Border Measures and other means of Customs Intervention against Infringers", Q208 of AIPPI GRUR Int. 2009, 826 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/208/GR208germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1300 Kanz/Lunze: Your Guide to IP issues in Germany MIP IP Focus Life Sciences, 7th edition 2009, p. 48ff. Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) http://www.managingip.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=2324851 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1301 Duits Osterrieth, Patent-Trolls in Europa - braucht das Patentrecht neue Grenzen? GRUR 2009, 540 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1302 Engels Osterrieth, Patent-Trolls in Europe - Does the patent law need new limits? GRUR 2009, 540 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1303 Spaans Osterrieth, Patent-Trolls in Europa - braucht das Patentrecht neue Grenzen? GRUR 2009, 540 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1304 Frans Osterrieth, Patent-Trolls in Europe - Does the patent law need new limits? GRUR 2009, 540 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1305 Nederlands Osterrieth, Patent-Trolls in Europe - Does the patent law need new limits? GRUR 2009, 540 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1306 Kanz in: Drafting Agreements in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Industries Oxford University Press, 2009 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) http://global.oup.com/booksites/nbs/law/9780199539635/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1307 Haft/Hahn in Agé/Métier/Haft/Hahn/van Gardingen/Laakkonen: Litigating standard-essential patents - FRAND and antitrust implications 2009 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) http://www.managingip.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=2251025 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1308 Duits Haft/v. Samson-Himmelstjerna: Kerntheorie bei der Erschöpfung von Patenten, inbesondere von "standard-essentiellen" "Hightech"-Patenten Festschrift für Thomas W. Reimann, Heymanns 2009 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) http://www.amazon.de/Patentrecht-Festschrift-f%C3%BCr-Thomas-Reimann/dp/3452270572 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1309 Engels Haft/v. Samson-Himmelstjerna: Core theory regarding exhaustion of patents, in particular "standard-essential" "high-tech" patents Festschrift for Thomas W. Reimann, Heymanns 2009 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) http://www.amazon.de/Patentrecht-Festschrift-f%C3%BCr-Thomas-Reimann/dp/3452270572 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1310 Spaans Haft/v. Samson-Himmelstjerna: Core theory regarding exhaustion of patents, in particular "standard-essential" "high-tech" patents Festschrift for Thomas W. Reimann, Heymanns 2009 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) http://www.amazon.de/Patentrecht-Festschrift-f%C3%BCr-Thomas-Reimann/dp/3452270572 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1311 Frans Haft/v. Samson-Himmelstjerna: Core theory regarding exhaustion of patents, in particular "standard-essential" "high-tech" patents Festschrift for Thomas W. Reimann, Heymanns 2009 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) http://www.amazon.de/Patentrecht-Festschrift-f%C3%BCr-Thomas-Reimann/dp/3452270572 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1312 Nederlands Haft/v. Samson-Himmelstjerna: Core theory regarding exhaustion of patents, in particular "standard-essential" "high-tech" patents Festschrift for Thomas W. Reimann, Heymanns 2009 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) http://www.amazon.de/Patentrecht-Festschrift-f%C3%BCr-Thomas-Reimann/dp/3452270572 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1313 Duits Osterrieth/Köhler/Haft (Herausgeber), Patentrecht, Festschrift für Thomas Reimann zum 65. Geburtstag 2009 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) http://www.amazon.de/Patentrecht-Festschrift-f%C3%BCr-Thomas-Reimann/dp/3452270572 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1314 Duits von Falck/Gerhardt: Aktuelle Rechtsprechung und Gesetzgebung in Patentverletzungssachen Mitt. 2008, S. 299 Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1315 Brook/Gerhardt: Patent decisions could smash stereotypes Patent World 2009, 15 Thu, 01/01/2009 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1316 Duits Haft in Haft/Baumgärtel/Dombrowski/Grzimek/Joachim/Loschelder, Die Erschöpfung von Rechten des Geistigen Eigentums in Fällen des Recyclings oder der Reparatur von Waren GRUR-Int. 11/2008, S. 944 ff. Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1317 Engels Haft in Haft/Baumgärtel/Dombrowski/Grzimek/Joachim/Loschelder, Exhaustion of IPRs in cases of recycling or repair of goods GRUR-Int. 11/2008, p. 944 ff. Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1318 Spaans Haft in Haft/Baumgärtel/Dombrowski/Grzimek/Joachim/Loschelder, Exhaustion of IPRs in cases of recycling or repair of goods GRUR-Int. 11/2008, p. 944 ff. Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1319 Frans Haft in Haft/Baumgärtel/Dombrowski/Grzimek/Joachim/Loschelder, Exhaustion of IPRs in cases of recycling or repair of goods GRUR-Int. 11/2008, p. 944 ff. Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1320 Nederlands Haft in Haft/Baumgärtel/Dombrowski/Grzimek/Joachim/Loschelder, Exhaustion of IPRs in cases of recycling or repair of goods GRUR-Int. 11/2008, p. 944 ff. Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1321 Duits Kanz, in: Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz - Urheberrecht - Medienrecht, Kommentar Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patentrecht, Mitautor) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1322 Engels Kanz, in: Industrial Property Law - Copyright Law - Media Law, Commentary Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patent Law, Co-author) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1323 Spaans Kanz, in: Industrial Property Law - Copyright Law - Media Law, Commentary Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patent Law, Co-author) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1324 Frans Kanz, in: Industrial Property Law - Copyright Law - Media Law, Commentary Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patent Law, Co-author) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1325 Nederlands Kanz, in: Industrial Property Law - Copyright Law - Media Law, Commentary Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patent Law, Co-author) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1326 Duits Kasper, in: Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz - Urheberrecht - Medienrecht, Kommentar Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patentrecht; Mitautor) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1327 Engels Kasper, in: Industrial Property Law - Copyright Law - Media Law, Commentary Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patent Law, Co-author) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1328 Spaans Kasper, in: Industrial Property Law - Copyright Law - Media Law, Commentary Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patent Law, Co-author) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1329 Frans Kasper, in: Industrial Property Law - Copyright Law - Media Law, Commentary Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patent Law, Co-author) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1330 Nederlands Kasper, in: Industrial Property Law - Copyright Law - Media Law, Commentary Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patent Law, Co-author) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1331 Duits Köhler, in: Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz - Urheberrecht - Medienrecht, Kommentar Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patentrecht, Mitautor) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1332 Engels Köhler, in: Industrial Property Law - Copyright Law - Media Law, Commentary Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patent Law, Co-author) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1333 Spaans Köhler, in: Industrial Property Law - Copyright Law - Media Law, Commentary Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patent Law, Co-author) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1334 Frans Köhler, in: Industrial Property Law - Copyright Law - Media Law, Commentary Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patent Law, Co-author) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1335 Nederlands Köhler, in: Industrial Property Law - Copyright Law - Media Law, Commentary Carl Heymanns Verlag 2008 (Patent Law, Co-author) Tue, 01/01/2008 (All day) https://shop.wolterskluwer.de/wkd/detail/gewerblicher-rechtsschutz,-urheberrecht,-medienrecht,978-3-452-27879-1,carl-heymanns-verlag,56123/ 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1336 Duits Kanz (Mitautorin), Verfahrensrecht und Besonderheiten des Prozessrechts Berlin Verlag 2007 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1337 Engels Kanz (Co-author), Procedural Law Berlin Verlag 2007 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1338 Spaans Kanz (Co-author), Procedural Law Berlin Verlag 2007 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1339 Frans Kanz (Co-author), Procedural Law Berlin Verlag 2007 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1340 Nederlands Kanz (Co-author), Procedural Law Berlin Verlag 2007 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1341 Duits Haft, Patent- und Gebrauchsmusterverletzung; Wirkung des Patentschutzes, Schutzumfang Berlin Verlag 2007 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1342 Engels Haft, Infringement of Patents and Utility Models, Effects of Patent Protection, Scope of Protection Berlin Verlag 2007 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1343 Spaans Haft, Infringement of Patents and Utility Models, Effects of Patent Protection, Scope of Protection Berlin Verlag 2007 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1344 Frans Haft, Infringement of Patents and Utility Models, Effects of Patent Protection, Scope of Protection Berlin Verlag 2007 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1345 Nederlands Haft, Infringement of Patents and Utility Models, Effects of Patent Protection, Scope of Protection Berlin Verlag 2007 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1346 Duits Haft in: Henke/von Falck/Haft/Jaekel/Lederer/Loschelder/McGuire/Viefhues/von Zumbusch, "Der Einfluss der Mitinhaberschaft an Rechten des Geistigen Eigentums auf deren Verwertung", Q194 der AIPPI GRUR Int. 2007, 503 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/194/GR194germany_de.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1347 Engels Haft in: Henke/von Falck/Haft/Jaekel/Lederer/Loschelder/McGuire/Viefhues/von Zumbusch, "The Impact of Co-Ownership of Intellectual Property Richts on their Explotation", AIPPI Q194 GRUR Int. 2007, 503 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/194/GR194germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1349 Spaans Haft in: Henke/von Falck/Haft/Jaekel/Lederer/Loschelder/McGuire/Viefhues/von Zumbusch, "The Impact of Co-Ownership of Intellectual Property Richts on their Explotation", AIPPI Q194 GRUR Int. 2007, 503 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/194/GR194germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1350 Frans Haft in: Henke/von Falck/Haft/Jaekel/Lederer/Loschelder/McGuire/Viefhues/von Zumbusch, "The Impact of Co-Ownership of Intellectual Property Richts on their Explotation", AIPPI Q194 GRUR Int. 2007, 503 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/194/GR194germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1351 Nederlands Haft in: Henke/von Falck/Haft/Jaekel/Lederer/Loschelder/McGuire/Viefhues/von Zumbusch, "The Impact of Co-Ownership of Intellectual Property Richts on their Explotation", AIPPI Q194 GRUR Int. 2007, 503 Mon, 01/01/2007 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/194/GR194germany_en.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1352 Duits Köhler, Anmerkung zu BGH 1.8.2006 - Restschadstoffentfernung Mitt, 2006, 527 f. Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1353 Köhler, Enforcement of patents for electronic inventions Patent World, World Focus: IP & High Technology, October 2006, 17-19 Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1354 Kanz, Recent developments in German jurisdiction regarding damages following patent infringement Pharmaceutical Law Insight, October 2006, Vol. 2, Number 9, p. 17 Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1355 Duits Haft in: Haft/Fleuchaus/Jonas/Nack/Schulte/Schweyer, "Duldung (Tolerierung) der Verletzung geistiger Eigentumsrechte", Q192 der AIPPI GRUR Int. 2006, 703 Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/192/GR192germany_german.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1356 Engels Haft in: Haft/Fleuchaus/Jonas/Nack/Schulte/Schweyer, "Acquiescense (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights", AIPPI Q192 GRUR Int. 2006, 703 Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/192/GR192germany_english.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1357 Spaans Haft in: Haft/Fleuchaus/Jonas/Nack/Schulte/Schweyer, "Acquiescense (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights", AIPPI Q192 GRUR Int. 2006, 703 Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/192/GR192germany_english.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1358 Frans Haft in: Haft/Fleuchaus/Jonas/Nack/Schulte/Schweyer, "Acquiescense (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights", AIPPI Q192 GRUR Int. 2006, 703 Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/192/GR192germany_english.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1359 Nederlands Haft in: Haft/Fleuchaus/Jonas/Nack/Schulte/Schweyer, "Acquiescense (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights", AIPPI Q192 GRUR Int. 2006, 703 Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) www.aippi.org/download/commitees/192/GR192germany_english.pdf 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1360 Duits Ehlers/Bausch/Köhler Änderung von Patentansprüchen nach der Erteilung, AIPPI Q189 GRUR Int, 2006, S. 679 ff. Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1361 Engels Ehlers/Bausch/Köhler Amendment of Patent Claims after Grant, AIPPI Q189 GRUR Int, 2006, S. 679 ff. Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1362 Spaans Ehlers/Bausch/Köhler Amendment of Patent Claims after Grant, AIPPI Q189 GRUR Int, 2006, S. 679 ff. Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1363 Frans Ehlers/Bausch/Köhler Amendment of Patent Claims after Grant, AIPPI Q189 GRUR Int, 2006, S. 679 ff. Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1364 Nederlands Ehlers/Bausch/Köhler Amendment of Patent Claims after Grant, AIPPI Q189 GRUR Int, 2006, S. 679 ff. Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) 2015-09-25 Publications
Ja 1365 Duits Haft/Lunze, "Fünfeinhalb Jahre nach der „Gemeinkostenanteilentscheidung” des BGH – viel Lärm um Nichts?" Mitt 2006, S.193 ff. Sun, 01/01/2006 (All day) 2015-09-25