Class 46 readers might be interested in reading three recent posts on the IPKat blog:

EU Council presidency and copyright reform

Eleonora Rosati discusses what the new Bulgarian presidency of the Council of the European Union will mean for the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. The presidency has prepared a document aimed at setting up an “orientation debate” on Articles 11 and 13 of the proposed directive within Coreper.

“From this document released by the new Bulgarian presidency it would appear that neither Article 11 nor Article 13 are going anywhere, Council-wise. With regard to Article 11, the idea of replacing a right in favour of press publishers with a presumption of representation seems to have been abandoned. There is greater room for manoeuvre in relation to the value gap proposal, and on crucial aspects indeed,” concludes Eleonora.

Read the full post here. 

The MARQUES Copyright Team continues to monitor these developments and will keep members updated.

“Substantial value” questions referred

Also on the IPKat blog, Nedim Malovic brings news of a new referral to the CJEU. A trade mark case from Sweden involving Svenskt Tenn and Textillis raises the question whether a trade mark for the Manhattan textile print (pictured right) lacks distinctive character and whether the sign is a shape that gives the product a substantial value, thus being ineligible for protection.

Nedim has also provided a translation of the specific questions referred:

1. Whether Article 4 of Regulation 2015/2424 means that the wording of what is now Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation applies to invalidity proceedings brought after the entry into force of the new provisions but in relation to trade marks registered before that date;

2. Whether Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation should be interpreted as meaning that its scope covers a sign consisting of the two-dimensional representation of a two-dimensional product, including a fabric; and

3. If the answer to question 2 is yes – how should the wording in Article 7(1)(e)(iii), “shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods", be interpreted? Would it cover a situation where the registration includes a variety of classes of goods and services and the sign in question could be applied differently to the various goods and services covered by the registration?

Read the full post on this case here.

Image rights on cigarette packs

Finally, another post looks at the latest case to address issues around image rights. Maurizio Plescia, from Ischia, complained that an image of him in hospital was being used without authorisation as part of the health warning on cigarette packs in the EU.

Eleonora Rosati comments:

Newspapers do not report whether Plescia’s case has come to an end, but it seems quite incredible – if true - that one could be photographed without their authorization and the resulting image could be included in the Directive's picture library and subsequently used for combined health warnings without obtaining all necessary permissions. In this sense, Plescia’s case is a useful reminder that, when it comes to using third-party images, wannabe users should not be just concerned about copyright issues (including the non-assignable moral rights of the author of the photograph), but also the rights of the person(s) portrayed in the photograph. The latter may present potentially a risk also in those countries that do not explicitly recognize the existence of self-standing image rights. In this sense, the quite recent Rihanna case in the UK is a telling example.

Read the full post here.