Search results for

On June 27 2016, the Belgian legislature finally adopted a new exception to copyright law, namely the freedom of panorama (FOP). According to this new provision, a copyright owner cannot impose its right against "the reproduction and public communication of visual, graphic or architectural artwork intended to be placed permanently in public places, providing that it concerns the reproduction or communication of the work as it is and that said reproduction or public communication does not affect the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author" (Belgian Act of June 27 2016 modifying the Economic codex in view of implementing the freedom of panorama – new article XI.190 2/1° of the Economic codex).

The supervisory authority of the EPO, the Administrative Council, decided in its July meeting on the long-debated structural reform of the Boards of Appeal. Despite rumours that the Boards would be moved away from Munich to for example Berlin or Vienna, the AC eventually decided that the Boards will remain in Munich, albeit in premises not shared with other departments of the EPO.

This summer, the Court of Justice of the EU issued a ruling that dealt with the application of article 14 of the EU IP Enforcement Directive. According to this article, EU member states must ensure that in court cases, the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party shall, as a general rule, be borne by the losing party. While one could gather from this that the sky's the limit as far as costs compensations in IP cases go, the Court ruling teaches us there may in fact be limits.

Companies that decide to produce or sell products in mainland China without first having registered their trade marks do so at their own peril.

The Korean Patent Act has been revised twice in the year 2016 and the revisions are quite substantial. Some of the new revisions will become effective from June 30 2016 and others from March 1 2017. The major revisions include the following:

The Indonesian Parliament finally passed the draft new Patent Law on July 28 2016. This new Patent Law has recently been introduced as Law Number 13 of 2016, and is to replace Law Number 14 of 2001 on Patents.

A very recent court judgment issued by the Beijing IP Court imposed contributory liability on trade fair organisers for patent infringement. Though the reasoning is quite unclear, this decision gives some worthy attention to IP enforcement at Chinese trade fairs.

Vietnam applies the first-to-file principle for trade mark registration and does not require evidence of use or intent to use at the time of filing, or for renewal. For maintaining a registration, though, a trade mark owner or its licensee must use the mark or risk cancellation for non-use. The IP Law stipulates that if a mark has not been used by its owner or a licensee without justifiable reasons for five consecutive years prior to a request for cancellation, except where the use is commenced or resumed at least three months before the request, the registration is vulnerable to cancellation. However, the trade mark owner is not required to submit evidence of use on a regular basis – only when the mark is attacked for non-use.

The draft Industrial Property Law in Turkey was passed by the main and sub commissions of the Science, Industry and Technology Ministry with minor amendments on May 5 2016. As shared in the issue of May 25 2016, one of the most debated issues was the international exhaustion principle, accepted for any kind of IP rights.

A recent but interesting order relates to an injunction issued against Youtube in Tata Sky Ltd v Youtube LLC, directing Youtube to take down videos that gave instructions on circumventing of the encryption system employed in Tata Sky's set-top boxes. This allowed users to view content made available by Tata Sky that they had not paid for. The recent order in August 2016 involved a variation to an earlier interim injunction issued in 2015 against Youtube. The interim injunction originally directed Youtube to ensure that the Tata Sky trade mark is not used on its website without written authorisation and to remove such circumvention tutorials. Youtube also apparently complied with taking down the allegedly offending videos. Tata Sky did not assert copyright on the videos itself.