European IP Snapshot – March 2017 欧洲知产快讯 – 2017年三月

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

著作权

Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV and another, Case C-610/15

Stichting Brein诉Ziggo BV及其他，案件C-610/15

In response to a reference from the Dutch courts, Advocate General Spzunar (the “AG”) has provided an opinion on whether a P2P file sharing search engine operator makes a communication to the public under Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive by virtue of allowing internet users to share files containing copyright works on P2P networks.

The AG considered that such activity constituted a communication to the public where the search engine operator was aware of the fact that a work was made available on the network without consent of the copyright holder and did not take action to prevent access to the work.

Should the CJEU not follow the AG’s opinion, the AG considered that copyright holders should be permitted to obtain an injunction ordering intermediaries to block access to an indexing site of a P2P network if the operator of that site can, under national law, be held liable for copyright infringements committed by users of that network.

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

针对荷兰法院的问题，总法律顾问Spzunar对于通过P2P文件共享搜索引擎传播著作权产品是否构成《著作权指令》第3条第1款规定下的大众传播提出了看法。

总法律顾问认为引擎操作员在认识到该行为将导致著作权产品未经同意而被使用的情况下，不仅未获得权利人的同意且未采取任何预防措施。上述行为应当被认定为构成对大众的传播。

总法律顾问同时认为在网站操作员对于网络使用者侵权行为负有责任的情况下，应当赋予权利人要求其阻止用户访问P2P网站的权利。

获取关于该决定的全文信息，请点击这里。

Signature Realty Ltd v Fortis Developments Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 3583 (Ch)

Signature Realty Ltd 诉 Fortis Developments Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 3583 (Ch)

The High Court has held that the copyright in an architect’s drawings was infringed in a case where the claimant property developer who obtained the planning permission (and aborted the deal due to lack of funding) was not the developer who built the building. The defendants had used the drawings for marketing and tendering purposes and the defendant’s architects had based their own drawings on the works.

The case analyses the blurred line between benefiting from planning permission attached to land and avoiding infringing copyright in the drawings that form the basis for that permission.

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

高等法院判决认为使用获得规划许可的房地产开发商的建筑设计图构成侵权。本案中，原告由于缺乏资金而放弃规划，因而最终并不是该建筑的建造者。被告将该原开发商设计图用于营销及招标，并在这些作品的基础上创作了自己的设计图。本案分析了从土地规划许可获益的模糊界限，并将警示利用申请许可时提交的设计图的侵权行为。

获取关于该决定的全文信息，请点击这里。

DESIGNS

设计

Antrax It v EUIPO (Thermosiphons pour radiateurs), Joined Cases T-828/14 and T-829/14

Antrax It诉EUIPO (热虹吸散热器), 联合案例T-828/14 and T-829/14

The General Court has found that two registered Community designs for the shapes of radiators are invalid on the basis that the designs lacked individual character. The proprietor of the designs had sought to argue that the state of the art was saturated to the extent that, in the assessment of individual character, the informed user would be more attentive to differences of detail between the conflicting designs. However, the evidence submitted by the proprietor was not sufficiently clear, precise and coherent. The General Court, in upholding the decision of the Board of Appeal on this issue has provided some useful guidance on the types and extent of evidence that may be required to prove saturation.

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

常设法院查明两项已经注册的散热器的外观设计由于缺乏独特性而应属于无效。权利人声称这些设计的饱和性极强，对于其独特性特征的判断，只有了解情况的使用者才更容易注意到不同设计之间的细微区别。

然而权利所有人提交的证据并不够清晰，准确及连贯。常设法院认为上诉法院对类似案件的判决提供了相应的参考，包括对于证明饱和性的证据在类型及程度上的要求。

获取关于该决定的全文信息，请点击这里。

TRADE MARKS AND PASSING OFF

商标及假冒

Argos Ltd v Argos Systems Inc [2017] EWHC 231 (Ch)

Argos Ltd诉Argos Systems Inc [2017] EWHC 231 (Ch)

The High Court has rejected a claim for trade mark infringement and passing off brought by the retailer Argos Ltd. The Defendant, a US-based company which provides Computer Aided Design systems, was the proprietor of the domain name www.argos.com. Argos Ltd contended that the Defendant’s use of the sign ARGOS in the domain name and in conjunction with its website was unlawful, in particular due to the presence of ads for Argos Ltd placed on the Defendant’s webpage by Google AdSense technology.

The Claimant’s claim failed on various grounds. In particular, the Court considered that the Claimant had expressly consented to the acts complained of by choosing to participate in the Google AdWords scheme.

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

高等法院不支持Argos Ltd提起的商标侵权及假冒诉讼。本案被告人是一家提供计算机辅助设计技术的美国公司，拥有对www.argos.com网站的所有权。Argos Ltd认为被告在其网站使用ARGOS的标志以及在域名中使用该词的行为是违法的，尤其是在谷歌关键词自助服务系统下在被告网页出现Argos Ltd广告的行为应当受到追究。

原告的诉求得不到支持有多方面的原因。值得指出的是，法院认为原告已经通过参与谷歌关键词自助服务系统对上述行为表示了同意。

获取关于该决定的全文信息，请点击这里。

PATENTS

专利

Icescape Ltd v Ice-World International BV and others [2017] EWHC 42 (Pat)

Icescape Ltd 诉 Ice-World International BV及其他[2017] EWHC 42 (Pat)

In finding in favour of an alleged patent infringer, the High Court held that a patent for a mobile ice rink was invalid for prior use, because the priority date could not be maintained and was therefore deemed to be its filing date.

This was due to the fact that the technical disclosure of the priority document did not disclose elements of the claimed invention. The case on infringement failed and there was no defence to the threats claim pursuant to section 70(2A) of the Patents Act 1977. Accordingly, the application for a declaration of non-infringement succeeded.

在证明不构成专利侵权的过程中，高等法院认为移动溜冰场所使用的一项专利由于存在在先使用而无效，原因在于优先权日期并不能被确定，因而应当以申请日期为准。

本案中，对于优先权文件的技术披露并没有披露该专利的组成要件，因而对于专利侵权的诉求并不能得到支持。此外，原告毫无疑问构成《1977年专利权法案》第70条第2款A项所规定的侵权威胁。最终，法院支持了无侵权行为存在的诉求。