Friday, 19 May 2017

Trademarks in Spain: a step by step by guide


ELZABURU partners Luis Baz and Fernando Ilardia offer a complete and easy to follow guide about trademark registration in Spain: how to apply for your trademark, refusals, oppositions and so on

Spanish chapter

Reproduced with permission from Global Legal Group (published in May 2017)

Monday, 3 April 2017

The patent act has died. Long live the Patent Act!


The 1986 Spanish Patent Act has died of natural causes in Madrid, aged 31. Its successor, Law 24/2015, saw the light of day on Saturday 1 April, after a 21-month gestation period, thanks to the publication of its Implementing Regulation in the Official State Journal right on the deadline that had been established to that end. The SPTO’s enormous effort to take the Regulation forward paid off in extremis, guaranteeing safe delivery. 

We are now up against a new grant procedure, a new judicial system, new challenges and strategies, as well as new unknowns. This is something that we lawyers have been well accustomed to since 1986 –precisely when the Act to which we are now bidding a nostalgic farewell came into force-, when the profound transformation of Spanish industrial and intellectual property legislation got underway. 

In times of change, let us recall what the current Nobel Prize in Literature winner, Bob Dylan, had sung in his classic “Forever Young”: “may you have a strong foundation when the winds of changes shift”. Long live the new Patent Act and good luck to everyone.

N.B. For a more detailed explanation of Law 24/2015, please check here our posts published in 2015 and 2016.

Author: Antonio Castán

Visit our website: http://www.elzaburu.es/en

Wednesday, 29 March 2017

How will Brexit affect the rights of EUTM holders?

The practical implications of Brexit as far as the rights of EU trademark holders are concerned will likely only be felt around 3 years following the United Kingdom’s formal notice of withdrawal from the EU; they nevertheless compel EU trademark holders to take certain measures to ensure that the changes that will follow in the wake of Brexit do not adversely affect the protection of their trademarks.

It will likely be at least 3 years before the UK actually breaks off from the EU, based on the various phases established for a Member State’s departure.  Indeed, having made the decision to leave the EU, the UK -under Art. 50 of the Treaty on EuropeanUnion- has just formally notified the European Council of its withdrawal.  It now has a period of two years in which to conduct the negotiations that will enable it to establish the new legislative framework, which will be voted on by the Member States and also, apparently, by the British Parliament.  The new situation will therefore depend on the outcome of the negotiations between the UK and the EU and on the mechanisms that are ultimately put in place.

For now, therefore, the familiar landscape of trademarks in the EU remains unchanged: there are still national trademarks, international registrations under the Madrid System, of which the UK is a member, and European Union trademarks covering the 28 EU Member States, including the UK.  
The UK Intellectual Property Office has announced that it intends to maintain ties with the EU, and so it will likely establish a process whereby EU trademarks are converted into UK national trademarks, or the rights conferred by EU trademarks are automatically recognised.

The EU trademark’s filing date will likely be retained as the priority date, as in the case of the conversion of EU trademarks into national registrations provided for in Art. 112 EUTMR where, following refusal of an application to register an EU trademark due to opposition based on one or several national trademarks, the applicant decides to apply for protection of the trademark in the countries in which no obstacles have been encountered.  This conversion is carried out by paying a conversion fee, equivalent to an application fee, and by submitting the application to the local examination system as if it were a new national trademark, except for the fact that it retains the filing and priority date of the EU trademark.  If the conversion were requested for an EU trademark registration and not a mere application, the national trademark could be granted without further ado.  It all depends on the terms of the negotiations and domestic policy decisions adopted by the UK.  

For the time being, EU trademarks are still fully effective in the UK, and only once the estimated 3-year period has elapsed will companies have to decide whether their interest in the British market is strong enough to warrant filing a new UK trademark application, extending an international registration to the UK or requesting the conversion of their EU trademark registration into a UK national trademark registration.

Nevertheless, we can, at this stage, anticipate cases in which companies will have to take measures to avoid losing their trademark rights, both in the UK and on a European level, as a result of Brexit.

For instance, EU trademarks that were granted over 5 years ago and have only recently been converted into UK national trademarks could be vulnerable to revocation actions for non-use in the UK if they have not been used in that territory.  It cannot be ruled out, however, that the 5-year grace period will start to run as of the date on which the conversion was requested or granted.   

Similarly, once the UK no longer forms part of the EU, the holders of EU trademarks granted over 5 years ago and only used in the UK could find that their trademark rights have no effect when it comes to filing opposition against a new EU trademark application, since they will be unable to validly demonstrate use of their trademark in the EU.  They may even lose those rights if they are targeted by a revocation action for non-use before the EUIPO.

Consequently, businesses must now start to reassess their trademark protection strategy in light of the country in which they are putting their trademarks to genuine use.

Furthermore, in order to be in a position to block the registration of EU trademarks, UK companies will have to register their marks as EU trademarks, or do so in an EU Member State, since their national registrations will not be able to serve as a basis for opposition against an EU trademark application.

EU companies that are not from the UK will have to weigh up how important the UK market is for them.  In the event that those companies had a particular interest in that market, they should move to register any EU trademarks that they hold as national trademarks in the UK before the effect of Brexit on the existing EU trademarks is clarified in order to avoid the possible, albeit rather unlikely, loss of rights.

Also, all companies should now keep their UK registrations in force, even if their seniority has been claimed in an EU registration of the same mark, since it is uncertain whether it will be possible to recover the validity of those rights –once they have been abandoned on a national level- after the UK has left the EU.

It will also be necessary for any new agreements signed in relation to EU trademarks to include clauses expressly providing that the agreements shall continue to apply in the territories that formed part of the EU in the event that they subsequently ceased to be members, and clauses stipulating that not only do those agreements apply in the territory of the EU on the date of signature of the agreement but also in future EU Member States.


These are just some of the thoughts that we can offer now, following activation of the mechanism provided for in Art. 50 TEU.  There is still a long way to go before the applicable legislation, the terms of the agreements reached in respect of trademarks and the measures that companies will have to take in order to secure the best protection for their rights in the UK come to light.


Visit our website: http://www.elzaburu.es/en

Monday, 27 March 2017

Lawyers from 28 countries analyse the legal challenges faced by start-ups

The 3rd IBA Silicon Beach Conference - All Along the Spectrum – From Start-Up to IPO/Exit and Beyond was held in Santa Monica, California from 1 to 3 February 2017. We at ELZABURU’s entrepreneurship and start-ups area (Legal & Business Department) had the chance to attend this international gathering as the only representatives from Spain.   

IBA (International Bar Association) is the largest lawyer network in the world. The conference brought together internationally renowned lawyers and expert academics, public institution representatives, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists to analyse the legal challenges faced by start-ups(1).

The conference offered interesting panel sessions and dynamic roundtable discussions on current issues, latest trends and strategies for developing, expanding, funding and exiting from a start-up company.

Of particular interest as far as IP is concerned were the sessions on the legal implications of the development of mobile applications, as well as those in which participants shared experiences in the development of a start-up company’s effective IP protection strategy. Without going into a full summary of the sessions, we would like to highlight the following debates and ideas:

1. Apps of Things (AoT)

The development and use of digital tools and services is growing at lightning speed.

Some time ago, we attended a vehement legal debate on this subject, which constitutes a global strategic priority and an area of intense legislative development.

Nevertheless, the sector referring to Apps of Things (AoT) - apps which turn our day-to-day objects into connected, intelligent devices capable of catering for a wide range of user needs, deriving from, and made possible by, the concept of the Internet of Things (IoT) – continues to be a trend, generating fresh challenges for lawyers and developers alike, and in this market start-ups play a particularly important role.   

The extent of personal data collection and exchange is continuing to grow significantly. People are disseminating an ever-increasing volume of personal data on a global scale. In fact, we have recently been coming across unprecedented cases concerning the implications of the collection of data and personal information by new technological devices that are, by default, “permanently active” and continuously recording, for instance, the voices of users within the private setting of their homes. We refer here to the recent privacy cases involving the intelligent device “Amazon Echo”, which includes the new voice control system (“Alexa”), one of the most promising recent technological advances(2).

These incidents ensure that the debate on the meaning and scope of the right to personal data protection, the new privacy model and user security is kept alive.

Friday, 24 March 2017

Licensing in Spain:

ELZABURU Partner Javier Fernández-Lasquetty together with lawyers Alba López and Martín Bello answer the key questions of concern to corporations and their counsel when dealing with licensing laws in Spain. Areas covered include: kinds of licences, law affecting international licensing, intellectual property issues, software licensing, royalties and other payments, currency conversion and taxes, competition law issues, indemnification, disclaimers of liability, damages and limitation of damages, termination of licensing agreements, bankruptcy, governing law and dispute resolution.



Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. Getting the Deal Through: Licensing 2017, (published in February 2017; contributing editor: Bruno Floriani, Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP) For further information please visit https://gettingthedealthrough.com/area/19/licensing/

Friday, 30 December 2016

Mercantile courts make a move

The Official State Gazette for the penultimate day of the year came out with a surprise in the form of the publication of a decision whereby the National Judicial Council has designated specialized courts to hear IP related lawsuits in the following autonomous communities:

  
Community
Designated courts


Catalonia

Barcelona Mercantile Courts Nos. 1, 4 and 5: patents and industrial designs

Barcelona Mercantile Courts Nos. 2, 6, 8 and 9: trademarks


Madrid

Madrid Mercantile Courts Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10



Valencia

Valencia Mercantile Court No. 2: patents
Valencia Mercantile Courts Nos. 1 and 3: trademarks and industrial designs


The decision has been prompted by the risk (relative though it may be), perceived upon the promulgation of the new Law 24/2015 on Patents, that lawsuits in the IP field could migrate to Barcelona. It will take effect from April 2017, which is when that new law comes into force.


It remains to be seen whether, since the geographical scope of the specialization remains limited, legal actions are going to be concentrated in    Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia (together with Alicante) to the exclusion of other autonomous communities. However, that is another story. For the moment, the decision of the National Judicial Council may be received with relief and applause.

Author: Antonio Castán

Visit our website: http://www.elzaburu.es/en 

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

The graphic representation of the Rubik’s Cube will no longer be a trademark in the European Union

All of us will be familiar with the famous puzzle invented in 1974 by Erno Rubik. The cube has a core mechanism with intersecting axes allowing each of the six faces to rotate independently, thus giving shape to a six-colour puzzle.

Given the worldwide success it rapidly achieved, the puzzle inevitably inspired the appearance in the marketplace in the course of the years of a multitude of other models made of various materials and in a range of shapes and colours.

In these circumstances appropriate protection naturally had to be sought for the Rubik’s Cube and was obtained through intellectual property rights such as those afforded by EU trademark No. 162784.

EU trademark No. 162784, the mark in dispute

A conflict arose in connection with that trademark in 2006, when a famous German toy manufacturer filed an application for a declaration of invalidity on the ground, essentially, that the mark embodied a technical function consisting of the rotatable nature of the product and that third parties were thus prevented from selling similar puzzles which necessarily incorporated that mechanism and took a shape essential for the proper functioning thereof.

Up to now the EUIPO and the General Court had maintained that the representation of the Rubik’s Cube with its grid structure had sufficient distinctive character to perform the function of a trademark and that the internal mechanism could not, in any event, be perceived therein. However, in a judgment published on 10 November 2016 (C-30/15 P) the Court of Justice has overturned those previous rulings.

In that judgment, which is in line with the conclusions previously drawn by the Advocate General, the Court holds that the essential characteristics of a shape must be assessed in the light of the technical function of the actual goods at issue (a three-dimensional puzzle), also taking into account the elements which are not visible in the graphic representation of that shape and the rotatability of the individual elements of a three-dimensional puzzle of the Rubik’s Cube type. Thus, for want of arbitrary or decorative elements, the shape of the Rubik’s Cube does not qualify for registration as a trademark, as such a registration severely limits the freedom of other traders to market products characterized by the same or a similar technical result, i.e., that of a three-dimensional puzzle to be resolved through positioning moveable elements in a logical order.

Now the EUIPO will have to deliver a fresh decision taking into account the findings of the Court of Justice.

N.BA Spanish version of this article was published in the economic newspaper Expansión


Author: Soledad Bernal Montes

Visit our website: http://www.elzaburu.es/en