European IP Snapshot – July 2016 欧洲知产快讯 – 2016年七月

China

Bringing you regular news of key developments in European intellectual property law.

持续为您提供欧洲知识产权法律的关键更新.

CONFIDENTIALITY

保密

Vestergaard Frandsen et al v Bestnet Europe Ltd et al [2016] EWCA Civ 541

Vestergaard Frandsen Bestnet Europe有限公司等 [2016] EWCA Civ 541

The Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the High Court regarding the assessment of damages in a breach of confidence action.

The court was asked to consider what approach to assessing damages is appropriate when a defendant’s products are not manufactured using the confidential information directly, but are products that are derived from the confidential information but have been the subject of substantial further development.

In such cases, the correct approach is not to assess lost profits based on a notional royalty, but to assess damages for the period of accelerated entry into the market and to estimate a quasi-consultancy fee.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

上诉法院维持了高级法院关于违反保密条款的损失评估的决定.

该法院被问及当被告的产品并不是直接使用保密信息而是从保密信息演化而来并取得实质性进步时应当如何合理评估损失.

在类似的案件中,评估损失不应当以名义上的遵守为基础,而应当参考进入市场所耗费的时间以及咨询准顾问的费用.

关于该决定的全文,请点击这里.


COPYRIGHT

著作权

Entidad de Gestion de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) and others Administracion del Estado and others, Case C-470/14, 9 June 2016

Entidad de Gestion de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) and others Administracion del Estado and others, Case C-470/14, 201669

In response to a request for a preliminary ruling from the Spanish Supreme Court, the CJEU has provided further guidance on the interpretation of the private copying exception and corresponding fair compensation requirement under Art.5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC (commonly referred to as the InfoSoc Directive).

The CJEU held that the Spanish fair compensation system, which is financed from the General State Budget, was incompatible with Art.5(2)(b) as it was not possible under the scheme to ensure the cost of compensation is borne by the actual users of private copies.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

为回应西班牙最高法院的做出初步裁定的请求,欧盟法院对于《指令》(2001/29/EC)(通常被称为《信息社会指令(InfoSoc Directive)》)的5(2)(b)条款进行了进一步的解读。该条款主要是关于私自复制的例外和相应的公平补偿要求.

欧盟法院认为西班牙由国家总预算提供财政支持的合理补偿系统与5(2)(b)条款是不相容的。该系统并不能保障赔偿最终由私自复制品的使用者承担.

关于该决定的全文,请点击这里.

Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA), Case C-117/15, 31 May 2016

Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA), Case C-117/15, 2016531

The CJEU confirmed that “communication to the public” had one meaning for the purposes of copyright law. They distinguished between two apparently contradictory cases under the different copyright directives by highlighting the role of targeting and also whether or not the copyright material has an economic benefit to the person infringing.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

欧盟法院确认了“向公众传播”对于著作权法的意义。通过重点强调针对的对象以及著作权材料对于侵权人而言是否具有经济意义,欧盟法院对于在不同指令下完全相矛盾的两个案件进行了区分.

关于该决定的全文,请点击这里.


DESIGNS

设计

Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG v Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH, CJEU, 22 June 2016

Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH, CJEU, 2016622

The CJEU has ruled that the licensee of a Community design can (i) bring proceedings for infringement of the design even though the licence has not been registered; and (ii) claim damages for its own loss in proceedings for infringement of a Community design.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

欧盟法院已经确认欧共体外观设计的许可包括如下权利:(1)即使该许可未经登记,仍然可以对侵权行为进行起诉;(2)对欧共体外观设计侵权行为提起要求赔偿自身损失的诉讼.

关于该决定的全文,请点击这里.


TRADE MARKS AND PASSING OFF

商标以及假冒

Nikolajeva v OÜ Multi Project, Case C-280/15, 22 June 2016

Nikolajeva OÜ Multi Project, Case C-280/15, 2016622

CJEU considered three questions referred to it by the Estonian court regarding the interpretation of Article 9(3) (now Article 9(b), as amended) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (207/2009/EC) relating to the date from which a proprietor's rights in an EU trade mark prevail and the types of compensation that can be sought under Article 9(3) for non-material harm.

The CJEU held that a proprietor of an EU trade mark can claim compensation in respect of acts of third parties occurring after the publication of the application for registration of an EU trade mark, but not before.

Therefore Member States cannot provide under their national law that legal protection of an EU trade mark can begin on the date of the filing of the application for registration.

The CJEU also held that the concept of reasonable compensation rules out compensation for non-material harm, such as moral prejudice, during the period between the publication of the application of the mark concerned and the publication of its registration.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

欧盟法院针对爱沙尼亚法院对于欧盟商标法(207/2009/EC)条款9(3)(经修订后为9(b))提出的三个问题进行解读。该条款规定了欧盟商标权利人获得相关权利的日期以及在非实质性侵害下可以获得的赔偿的类型.

欧盟法院确认欧盟商标所有人可以要求侵权人赔偿在登记申请公告后侵权行为造成的损失而非公告之前.

因此成员国在本国法律内不得规定对于欧盟商标的保护始于向登记机构提交申请文件.

欧盟法院同时确认了对于在商标公布以及登记公告期间进行非实质性侵害(例如道德偏见)的合理赔偿方式.

关于该决定的全文,请点击这里.

Nissan Jidosha KK v EUIPO Case C-207/15 P

Nissan Jidosha KK 诉欧盟知识产权局 案件C-207/15 P

The Court of Justice of the European Union has annulled a decision of the General Court which had found that trade mark proprietors were not entitled to make successive partial renewals of the same mark. This means that a renewal during the six month grace period following the expiry of a mark will be permissible even if a partial renewal request was submitted during the six month period preceding the expiry.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

欧盟法院近期废止了普通法院关于商标所有人无权就同一商标进行部分续展的决定。这一举措表明商标到期之后,只要在六个月期限到期之前提交续展申请,即使是商标的部分的续展申请,仍然是被允许的.

关于该决定的全文,请点击这里.