Accession of Rwanda to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks

On 17 May 2013 WIPO officially announced Rwanda's accession to the Madrid System, whose members, with this year's accessions, now number 91. 

The Government of the Republic of Rwanda deposited its instrument of accession on 17 May 2013. 

The Madrid Protocol will enter into force, with respect to Rwanda, on 17 August 2013.

Author: Foreign Filing Department

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

José Luis López Gómez (TALGO), first Spaniard nominated for the European Inventor Award

The European Patent Office has recently published its list of finalists for the European Inventor Award 2013, a prize that in its eight-year lifetime has turned into one of the world's most distinguished awards for inventors. This year, for the first time since the award was created, the Industry slate includes a nominee from Spain, José Luis López Gómez.

This nomination is well-earned recognition for a Spanish inventor who has guided TALGO technology into use all over, in Europe, the United States, and China. We at ELZABURU take this opportunity to extend our most cordial congratulations both to our good friend José Luis and to TALGO and to wish them every success at the forthcoming award ceremony in Amsterdam on 28 May. In the present crisis our country is going through, seeing one of its inventors being honoured abroad is a hopeful sign.

Here is the European Patent Office's presentation of Jose Luis López Gómez: 

"The inventions of this Spanish railway engineer have made high-speed rail travel safer and more comfortable. He created a new method of ensuring a train's wheels stay safely on track and keep their optimal position on the rails at all times, especially in mountainous regions, and allows trains to travel 30% faster when going through curving stretches. His inventions propelled the company Patentes Talgo into one of the top spots among manufacturers of high-speed trains worldwide".

A new twist this year is the popular prize, allowing the public to vote for its preferred finalist.

For more information about the patent behind the nomination.

Author: Antonio Tavira

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

Court of Justice upholds the Decision authorizing enhanced cooperation to create the single European patent

This morning, 16 April 2013, the Court of Justice dismissed the actions brought by Spain and Italy against the Council Decision of 10 March 2011 authorizing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, rejecting all the appellants' pleas. The Court has followed Advocate General Bot's opinion to the letter four months after delivery.

The Decision of 10 March 2011 paved the way for adoption of Regulation (EU) No. 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection and of Council Regulation (EU) No. 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. At the end of March of this year Spain launched challenges to both Regulations (Cases C-146/13 and C-147/13), so the final decision in this now long, drawn out chapter will have to wait until early 2015.

The judgment of 16 April 2013 is significant for a number of reasons, for instance, because it

a) is the Court's first interpretation of the "enhanced cooperation" provided for under Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 326 to 334 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, tying it in not so much with integration as with surmounting the requirement of unanimity.

b) provides that creating European intellectual and industrial property rights falls within the framework of the internal market rather than coming under competition rules.

c) holds that "falling within non-exclusive competences" is a necessary and sufficient condition for enhanced cooperation.

d) accords the Council broad discretion in deciding when an issue is a "last resort" within the meaning of Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union.

e) reiterates that acts by the institutions are only misuse of power where there is objective, relevant, and consistent evidence that they have been taken solely, or at the very least chiefly, for ends other than those for which the power in question was conferred or with the aim of evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaties for dealing with the circumstances of the case.

f) anticipating a very interesting point bearing on the actions that have recently been filed, considers that application of Article 118 of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union probably clashes with that of Article 142 the Convention on the Grant of European Patents to the extent that the focus of the former is the European Union and that of the latter the Member States.

g) endorses an "incremental" model of integration, with partial integration being better than none at all.

h) posits that enhanced cooperation being possible in this context, creation of European intellectual and industrial property rights that do not encompass the entire territory of the Union, instead taking in only a certain number of Member States while leaving others out, should also be possible and that this is neither detrimental to the internal market nor a distortion of competition.

i) concludes that the competences, rights, and obligations of Spain and Italy have not been infringed in the course of this process.

Author: Manuel Desantes

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

India joins the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks

On Monday April the 8th 2013, WIPO officially announced India's accession to the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks, bringing the number ofcountries that have joined the Madrid System to 90.

The instrument of accession to the Madrid Protocol for the International Registration of Marks has been deposited by India's Minister for Commerce and Industry.

India's accession will take effect on 8 July 2013, at which time it will be possible to protect trademarks in India either as Indian national trademarks or in the form of international marks designating India as a Contracting Party.

Author: Foreign Filing Department

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

Proprietors of Community trademarks are protected against use of their marks by all third parties, including parties holding a later registration in their own name. Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union dated 21 February 2013, Fédération Cynologique Internationale v Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza (C-561/11)

1. Background. The Fédération Cynologique Internationale, proprietors of Community trademark no. 4438751 FCI FEDERACION CYNOLOGIQUE INTERNATIONALES in Classes 35, 41, 42, and 44, lodged a trademark infringement action with Community Trade Mark Court No. 1 in Alicante against Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza, who were themselves the proprietors of various Spanish trademark registrations for FCI (one senior to complainants' Community trademark) as well as a Community trademark registration for FCI (figurative).

With an eye to the facts in this case, the Community Trade Mark Court in Alicante raised the issue of whether the rights conferred by a Community trademark registration entitle the proprietor to prohibit the owner of another registered trademark from using that mark or, by contrast, trademark infringement proceedings are conditional upon first or concomitantly invalidating the defendant's Community trademark.

In the circumstances the Spanish court decided to stay the proceedings and refer the question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling with a view to ascertaining the actual scope of Article 9.1 of the Community Trade Mark Regulation, and in particular whether the words "all third parties" mean that a third party may be prevented from using his own trademark registration before that later trademark registration has been declared invalid.

2.  Findings. In paragraph 33 of the judgment (C-561/11), the Court states explicitly that "… Article 9(1) of the Regulation does not make any distinction on the basis of whether the third party is the proprietor of a Community trade mark or not" and afterwards goes on to add that, as it had already made plain in a Community design matter (judgment of 16 February 2012, Celaya, Case C-488/10), "… that provision grants the proprietor of a Community trade mark an exclusive right to prevent 'any third party', not having its consent, from using, in the course of trade, any signs liable to infringe its mark".

But the Court does not stop there. It also states that "… the proprietor of a Community trade mark is entitled both to apply to OHIM for a declaration of invalidity of the later Community trade mark and to oppose its use through infringement proceedings before a Community trade mark court." The court thus views these two actions as alternatives, as options to which the proprietor of a Community trade mark registration is entitled.

The Court interprets the provisions of the Community Trade Mark Regulation in light of the "priority principle", under which the earlier Community mark takes precedence over a later Community mark.

The court concludes by affirming that "… if the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, in order to prevent the use by a third party of a sign that is liable to affect the functions of its trade mark, were required to await the declaration of invalidity of the later Community mark held by that third party, the protection accorded to it by Article 9(1) of the Regulation would be significantly weakened" (paragraph 51).

3. Remarks. The judgment sets out exactly the same position the Court took in the matter of Community designs (judgment of 16 February 2012, Celaya, Case C-488/10). While this does afford the proprietor of an earlier trade mark registration some certainty, by the same token it is somewhat at odds with the obligation all trademark proprietors are under to use their mark. According to this recent judgment, the proprietor of a later registration will be in a weak and vulnerable position when he first commences using his mark.

However, in its judgment the Court does not enter into any deliberation on the final consideration set forth obiter dictum in paragraph 55 of the Advocate General's opinion, namely, "were the Court to accept the interpretation of the term 'third party' …, that interpretation would have also to include a third party who is the holder of a later registered trade mark in a Member State, regardless of the substance of the relevant national legislation."

In this regard it is important to note that the stance taken by the Supreme Court of Spain is quite different from the position taken by the Court of Justice. The Spanish Supreme Court takes the view that to be able to find that infringement has taken place, and consequently that there is liability for damages, there must also be a previous or concomitant ruling invalidating the later infringing registration (judgment of Chamber I of the Supreme Court on 4 April 2012) (in Spanish).

This difference will definitely have to be taken into account when taking legal action and, above all, when deciding whether to file for a Spanish or a Community trademark. There is also a chance that the Spanish Supreme Court may revise its position based on the judgment issued by the Court of Justice. We will therefore have to be alert to future developments. 

Author: Luis Baz

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

Twenty-four States sign Agreement on a Unified Patent Court in Brussels

The signing ceremony for the International Agreement on a Unified Patent Court took place at 3:15 p.m. on 19 February 2013. The scene in the Council Room at the Justus Lipsius Building in Brussels was a strange one: all the Member States of the European Union present except Spain. Twenty-four of them – all but Bulgaria and Poland, present but not signatories – had just concluded an international agreement to establish a Unified Patent Court outside the institutional framework of the EU. There were just three authentic texts, in German, French, and English, all together in a single volume. Starting with Belgium, one by one they affixed their signatures in the presence of the cameras under the Irish Presidency, with Commissioner Barnier as Master of Ceremonies. Spain's absence had been announced, as had Italy's presence, Italy having decided to sign the Agreement even though it had not joined the enhanced cooperation procedure that had ushered in unitary protection for EU patents for the other 25 EU Member States. Thus, in Italy, the Agreement will apply only to traditional European patents validated in that country.

The countdown to entry into force of the Agreement now begins. This will also imply application of the two Regulations adopted in December of last year (Regulation (EU) No. 1257/2012 ofthe European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementingenhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection and Council Regulation (EU) No. 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementingenhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protectionwith regard to the applicable translation arrangements).

The Agreement will enter into force on the first day of the fourth month after deposit of the 13th instrument of ratification or accession by the States, provided that these 13 States include France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, unless that date falls in 2013, in which case the Agreement will enter into force on 1 January 2014. Heavy pressure will doubtless be brought to bear on all signatory States to deposit their instruments of ratification by 1 November 2013, which would result in the Agreement's entering into force on 1 April 2014.

The Friends of the Presidency Group (Patents) is to meet in Brussels on Friday, 27 February, with a packed agenda including a review of each State's plans for ratification and an initial exchange of views on setting up the Administrative, Budget, and Advisory Committees.

The ceremony concluded with a family photo – Commissioner Barnier's priceless comment in front of the cameras, "Do you allow the Commissioner to be in the picture?" – and a speech by the President of the Council underlining "this important step towards a new architecture within the European Union". No mention of Spain's absence was made.

Author: Manuel Desantes

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

Another round concerning revocation of trademarks on grounds of non-use: the CJEU's judgment of 19 December 2012 in the Leno Case

The use requirement for Community trademarks and the territorial scope of that requirement remain controversial issues. A recent judgment by the CJEU has formalized matters somewhat in ruling that "borders of the Member States should be disregarded" when assessing genuine use of a Community trademark in the Community in matters bearing on revocation. Even so, this seemingly unambiguous finding fails to dispel all the question marks.

The case has again raised the long-standing issue of whether use of a trademark in a single Member State (in this case, The Netherlands) suffices to fulfil the requirement for "genuine use in the Community". The reference for a preliminary ruling was made in opposition proceedings at the Benelux national office requiring the opposing party to submit proof of use, but the doctrine set forth in the judgment is deemed extensible to applications for revocation of rights entered at the OHIM or counterclaims for revocation entered in infringement proceedings citing Community trademarks.

The Court has explicitly rejected both the OHIM Guidelines and a Joint Statement deeming use in one country to constitute genuine use in the Community, on grounds that they were not binding legal acts. Yet, at the same time, it has not completely ruled out that interpretation. The Court acknowledges that since a Community trademark enjoys more extensive territorial protection, it should be used "in a larger area than the territory of a single Member State", only to go on to say, right afterwards, 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 the territory of a single Member State". 

In the end the Court opted not to lay down a de minimis rule, admitting that it is impossible to determine a priori, and in the abstract, what territorial scope should be chosen and that it is up to the national courts to determine the genuine nature of use based on all the facts and circumstances in each individual case. The Court held that demonstrating whether "the commercial exploitation of the mark serves to create or maintain market shares for the goods or services for which it was registered" entails assessing the characteristics of the market concerned, the nature of the goods or services protected by the trademark, the territorial extent and scale of use, and the frequency and regularity of use. 

Now is thus a good opportunity to reflect on the consequences of the judgment and to review strategies with a view to the always difficult matter of choosing between national and Community trademarks, not only as grounds for opposition but also for portfolio maintenance.

Author: Miguel Ángel Medina

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