European IP Snapshot – January 2017 欧洲知产快讯 – 2017年一月

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.

COPYRIGHT
版权

Stichting Brein v Wullems, acting under the name of Filmspeler, Case C-5237/15
Stichting Brein诉Wullems案, acting under the name of Filmspeler, Case C-5237/15.

In a CJEU reference involving the sale of a media player with pre-installed add-ons allowing users to stream films without authorisation from the copyright holder, the Advocate General has recommended that the principle established in GS Media, that the provision of a hyperlink to unauthorised content can in itself be infringing if done for profit or with knowledge that the content is infringing, should also apply to the supply of hardware. The Advocate General also recommended that the CJEU find that the streaming by the end user was not a transient or incidental temporary act of reproduction exempt from the general restriction under Article 2 of the Directive.

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

本案涉及判定销售一款装载了允许用户在未经版权所有人许可的情况下在线观看电影的插件的娱乐播放器是否侵犯版权。欧洲法院总辩护律师认为GS Media一案中确立的原则也应该适用于硬件的供应。如果这种未经授权的超链接本身是盈利性质的或超链接提供方明知侵权行为，则可能构成侵权。总辩护律师进一步建议欧洲法院认定这种用户点击超链接的行为不属于一种暂时性或临时性再现作品的行为，因此不符合《知识产权指令》第二条所规定的例外情形.

关于该决定的全文，请点击这里.

DESIGNS
外观设计专利

Action Storage Systems Ltd v G-Force Europe.Com Ltd and another [2016] EWHC 3151 (IPEC)
Action Storage Systems 有限公司诉G-Force Europe.Com有限公司以及其他 [2016] EWHC 3151 (IPEC)

The IP Enterprise Court has ruled that unregistered design right in the Claimant’s “eXtreme” branded plastic lockers was infringed by lockers sold by the Defendants under the brand name “SuperTuff”. Rejecting the Defendants’ arguments that the design of the original lockers lacked originality or was commonplace in the market, the Court found that the Defendants had copied the Claimant’s design and had made their lockers substantially to the design of the eXtreme lockers. The Court also upheld the Claimant’s claim for secondary infringement.

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

欧洲知识产权法院判决，被告销售的“SuperTuff” 牌塑料寄物柜侵犯原告对“eXtreme”牌塑料寄物柜所持有的未经注册的外观设计专利。法院驳回了被告对于原告的塑料寄物柜缺乏创造性或常见于市场上的诉称。法院认为被告抄袭了原告eXtreme产品的外观设计，SuperTuff在外观设计上与eXtreme有很大的相似度。法院同时支持原告的间接侵权的主张.

关于该决定的全文，请点击这里.

PATENTS
专利

Hospira UK Ltd v Genentech, Inc. [2016] EWCA Civ 1185
Hospira UK有限公司诉Genetech公司案 [2016] EWCA Civ 1185

The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court that a patent relating to the treatment of breast cancer using the antibody trastuzumab in combination with a taxane was invalid for lack of inventive step. Genentech contended that the first instance judge had erred in his assessment of what was a fair expectation of success on the basis of the prior art, and that he had failed to take proper account of the position of the skilled person. However, the Court considered that the judge had not erred in principle and dismissed the appeal.

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

英国上诉法院维持了初审法院的判决，一项利用曲妥单抗抗体联合紫杉烷治疗乳腺癌的疗法由于缺乏创造性而无效。Genetech公司诉称初审法院法官没有公正地评估什么是建立在现有技术上的成功的创新，而且法官没有采取一个技术人员的视角。然而上诉法院认为初审法官不存在适用法律错误，驳回了上诉.

关于该决定的全文，请点击这里.

TRADE MARKS AND PASSING OFF
商标以及假冒

Property Renaissance Ltd T/A Titanic Spa v Stanley Dock Hotel Ltd T/A Titanic Hotel Liverpool and others [2016] EWHC 3103 (Ch)
Property Renaissance Ltd T/A Titanic Spa 诉Stanley Dock Hotel Ltd T/A Titanic Hotel Liverpool and others案 [2016] EWHC 3103 (Ch)

The High Court has considered a number of issues of trade mark infringement and passing off in proceedings between entities operating premises known as the “Titanic Spa” and “Titanic Hotel Liverpool”. Although the Court upheld the Claimant’s claims for trade mark infringement and passing off in relation to the past acts of the Defendants, the Court considered that the Defendants could avoid liability in respect of future acts provided they took certain steps to avoid a likelihood of confusion, such as including a prominent notice on their website.

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

初审法院审理了”Titanic Spa”商标与”Titanic Hotel Liverpool”商标之间的一系列商标侵权以及假冒案件。尽管法院支持了原告对被告侵犯商标权以及假冒商标的行为的主张，法院认为如若被告采取必要手段消除可能引发商标混淆的情形，例如在其网站上做出显著的说明，被告可以避免对其未来的商标使用行为承担责任.

关于该决定的全文，请点击这里.