Brand Finance Football 50 is an annual study conducted by one of the leading brand valuation and strategy consultancies. The study determines which of the word largest football clubs have the most powerful and valuable brands. As you can see below, this year FC Bayern München maintained its No. 1 position with a brand value of 896 million US-Dollars. This year's Champions League Winner, Real Madrid, and the UK football club, Manchester United, follow on second and third position. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4434","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-1872 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"369","height":"176"}}]] Bayern München made its way up to the top and reached ist No. 1 position for the first time last year. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4435","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-1873 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"306","height":"345"}}]] But, according to Country, the most valuable football brands are still from England with a total value of 3.790 million US-Dollars. Germany and Spain rank as No. 2 and No. 3. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4436","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-1874 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"366","height":"254"}}]] For more information please see BrandFinance’s just published report of 2014 – which includes an executive summary, charts, brand value and much more: http://www.brandfinance.com/images/upload/brandfinance_football_50_2014_web.pdf

The European General Court (EGC) ruled that the three dimensional shape of the Rubik‘s Cube as a Community trademark is valid (Judgment dated 25 November 2014; Case No.: T‑450/09). Background of the Case and Subject Matter In 1974, a young Professor of Architecture in Budapest (Hungary) named Erno Rubik created the multi-colored “three-dimensional puzzles” you can see below. The so called “Rubik's Cube” can be twisted and turned around without falling apart. The aim is to make each side of the cube a single color. Seven Towns, a UK company which manages the intellectual property rights relating to the “Rubik’s Cube”, registered the shape of the cube as a three-dimensional Community Trademark (No: 162784), in April 1999. In 2006, Simba Toys, a German toy manufacturer, applied at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) to have the three-dimensional trademark cancelled. Simba Toys is of the opinion that the cube involves a technical solution consisting of its rotating capability and such a solution may only be protected as a patent and not as a trademark. OHIM dismissed Simba Toy’s cancellation request. Therefore, Simba Toys brought a final action before the EGC against the decision of OHIM. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4433","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-1869 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"373","height":"328"}}]] Decision of the Court The EGC recognized that the famous Rubik’s Cube is a valid three-dimensional trademark. First, the Court pointed out that the essential characteristics of the contested trademark are the “cubic grid structure”, namely the cube per se and the grid structure which appears on each of its surfaces. According to the Court, the rotating capability of the vertical and horizontal lattices of the Rubik’s Cube does not result from the black lines or the grid structure. Its capability is the result of an internal mechanism which is invisible on its graphic representations. Therefore, the registration of the shape of the Rubik’s Cube as a Community Trademark cannot be rejected because the shape does not include any technical function. The Court determined that the trademark does not allow its holder to prohibit others from selling different types of three-dimensional puzzles that have a rotating capability. Instead, of the marketing monopoly is limited to three-dimensional puzzles that have the shape of a cube with surfaces which bear a grid structure (as seen above). Finally, the Court came to the result that the cubic grid structure of the trademark differs from the structure of other three-dimensional puzzles on the market. Therefore, the structure has a distinctive character which enables consumers to see the structure as an indication of the origin of the product.

The VDMA (Verband Deutscher Maschinen- und Anlagenbau e.V.) is a German engineering association which is based in Frankfurt and has political offices in Brussels and Berlin. With over 3.100 member companies the VDMA is one of the largest industrial associations in Europe. The VDMA covers the entire engineering sector from component manufacturers, machine builders, plant erectors, system suppliers and system integrators through to service providers. It published its Product Piracy Study 2014 in its 7th edition this year. The data was collected between February 3rd and March 10th 2014 among VDMA company members. This year 337 companies from all over Europe took part at the study. With 71 % of companies affected, the threat has reached a new record high in the mechanical engineering industry. Larger companies with more than 500 employees are particularly frequent targets. The damage to German mechanical engineering businesses in 2014 is estimated at 7.9 billion Euros. Revenue in this dimension would represent approx. 38,000 new jobs in mechanical engineering. As you can see below, the producers of woodworking machines are particularly frequent victims of product pirates. Other preferred victims are the textile and agricultural machinery. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4427","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-1860 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"288","height":"357"}}]] Most of the counterfeiters imitate components. Followed by design imitations but, also copying entire machines has become very popular. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4428","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-1861 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"315","height":"359"}}]] China is world’s single largest market for counterfeit products. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4429","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-1862 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"403","height":"231"}}]] Companies take care and take preventative measures to protect themselves against counterfeiters. Therefore, more than 80 percent of the companies rely on registering intellectual property rights, for example, in the form of patents or trademarks. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4430","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-1863 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"337","height":"413"}}]]

When counterfeits are discovered by the owner of the original products, 46 % will take legal action.

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4431","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-1864 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"386","height":"189"}}]] For more detailed information and the full report including charts, overviews and other statistics please see: http://www.vdma.org/article/-/articleview/3842960

The EGC (European General Court) decided that a wavy line is not distinctive for Vans and not registrable as a Community Trademark (Judgment dated 6 November 2014; Case No.: T-53/13). Background of the Case and Subject Matter In September 2011 the American shoe manufacturer – VANS Inc. – filed an application for Community Trademark No. 008543183 at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) for the following word/device mark for - among others - clothing:

 [[{"type":"media","fid":"4426","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-1857","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"273","height":"115"}}]]

Decision of the Court Both OHIM and the EGC rejected its registrability. First of all, the court argued that the wavy line is not sufficiently distinctive to be recognized by the general public as an indication of the origin of the product. In that regard, the court determined that, the goods covered by the mark applied for were aimed at the general public, which would pay an average degree of attention to them at the time of purchase. Furthermore, it noticed that that public would not meticulously analyze the characteristics of the mark applied for, but would recall only the concept of a wavy line, which is too vague to identify the goods as coming from a certain producer. Finally, the court pointed out that lines and stripes are commonly used within the clothing industry. Therefore, the relevant public may well take the view that the wavy line is simply an ornamental pattern and not a indication of origin. Secondly, the court found that the fact that the mark applied for had already been registered in certain Member States was irrelevant. The Community Trademark system is autonomous and, in addition to that, the Board of Appeal is not bound by previous or erroneous decisions made by OHIM, since each case must be assessed on its own merits. Finally, the applicant was not able to prove that the wavy line has such a high reputation in the European Union be able to claim acquired distinctiveness in order to get the trademark registerd. The applicant just submitted as evidence (intended to prove the distinctiveness acquired through use of the trademark applied for) an affidavit of its Vice President of Events, Promotions which shows that the sign applied for has been used since 1977. The various documents submitted were not sufficient in order to prove the sign in question was perceived by the relevant public as an indication of the commercial origin for the goods in question throughout the European Union.

The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) celebrated its 20^th anniversary on 17 November 2014 in the new auditorium of OHIM's premises, in Alicante, Spain. On this day OHIM commemorates 20 years of the Office and also the opening of OHIM's new building. History of OHIM OHIM is the trademark and designs registry for the internal market of the European Union (EU). It was set up in 1994 in Alicante, Spain. The decentralized agency registers Community Trademarks (CTM) since 1996, and Registered Community Designs (RCD) since 2003. The CTMs and the RCDs are valid throughout each of the currently 28 member states of the EU. It has received 1.3 million CTM applications from businesses within the EU and all over the world since 1996. Thus, OHIM has developed to be the largest EU agency. Below you can see a timeline with the most important changes at OHIM since 1994: [[{"type":"media","fid":"4423","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-1843","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"625","height":"350"}}]] Allocation of OHIM The Office is a public establishment which enjoys legal, administrative and financial independence. OHIM was created under EU law and has an own legal personality. The Court of Justice of the European Union is responsible for overseeing the legality of the Office's decisions. The Office is responsible for its budget. The budget derived mainly from registration fees and fees for the renewal of trademark protection. For more information to the 20^th anniversary of OHIM, please click on the following link: https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/de/twenty-years

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4424","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-1848 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"196","height":"130"}}]] Interbrand is the world’s leading brand consultancy, with a network of 33 offices in 27 countries. Since its Shanghai office first opened in 2002, Interbrand has partnered with various brands in China to assist them in creating and managing their brands’ values. In November 2014 they published the Top 50 Chinese Brands of the year. First of all, the total brand value of this year’s 50 Best China Brands increased 22 percent compared to 2013. This is the largest increase in the table’s overall brand value since the inception of Best China Brands. Below you can see the list of the top 20 Chinese Brands: [[{"type":"media","fid":"4425","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-1849","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"463","height":"469"}}]] The most valuable industry in China is the financial services industry. But, the strong performance of China’s Internet brands tag the end of the long era in which the financial services dominated.  But, even though the total brand value of Internet brands has increased from 11 % to 24 % compared to last year, the internet services just reached the second place. Since the second half of 2012, TAB (Tencent, Alibaba and Baidu) has acquired and invested in a lot of companies, including those representing the following sectors and industries: financial services, entertainment, education, and healthcare. As a result, these leading brands are creating a completely new brand ecosystems aimed at improving customer convenience and overall quality for lifetime. If you want to see the whole ranking, follow the link: http://interbrand.com/en/newsroom/16/interbrand-releases-2014-best-china-brands-report?_ga=1.91901849.266365682.1416406538

In urgent cases, it makes sense for intellectual property (IP) rights owners to apply for a preliminary injunction (PI). Especially if an infringing product is launched on the market, it is important to react quickly. We take the opportunity to briefly outline the most important aspects below. 1. Introduction A preliminary injunction is a provisional court decision establishing or maintaining a legal situation in a quick summary procedure. Regarding trademark and design infringements, a specialized IP court in Germany will take a decision within 2-3 working days. In exceptional cases, such as at trade fairs, within 1-2 hours. 2. Requirements for a preliminary injunction[[{"type":"media","fid":"4421","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-1836 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"216","height":"162"}}]] When examining the requirements for an injunction, the court has to balance the interests of both parties. On the one hand, the claimant wants to enforce his IP right as fast as possible to prevent imminent disadvantages. On the other hand, the defendant might suffer disadvantages as a consequence of enforcement of the preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction in IP matters is in general granted, if the following three prerequisites are fulfilled: a) Urgency A preliminary injunction is only successful if the claimant demonstrates that urgent relief is needed. Therefore, the claimant must show that he has reacted as quickly as possible to the infringement of his intellectual property right. Although there is no time limit required by law, the claimant should not wait more than four (4) weeks from the time he receives knowledge of the infringement of his IP right. Therefore it is important that, the claimant immediately informs his attorney in order to react as fast as possible. b) Clarity The infringement has to be clearly and comprehensibly formulated because the competent judges of the German IP court will only take a decision in an IP proceeding, if they understand the problem without the help of experts. c) Validity Finally, the validity of the IP right in suit needs to be given. The validity of trademarks will normally be suspected. Something different only applies, if the trademark not has been registered yet or is subject to a cancellation action or similar. Contrary thereto, the validity of a design can only be established via prior art searches. Therefore, when filing for a PI, the prior out searches must also be submitted to the court. Generally, in patent cases, it is only possible to assume a sufficient degree of validity of an IP right for a preliminary injunction to be granted if the patent has survived a first-instance opposition or nullity proceeding. 3. Procedure[[{"type":"media","fid":"4422","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-1837 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"267","height":"177"}}]] a) Warning letter It is recommendable - but not required - to send a prior warning letter to the infringer. Otherwise, the claimant has to bear the costs of the procedure if no warning letter is sent and the infringer immediately concedes upon receipt of the injunction. On the other hand, if a warning letter is send, the infringer therefore has the possibility to move the infringing goods or destroy evidence b) PI Request After that, a PI request asking for the issuance of a preliminary injunction is sent to the competent court. The request explains the involved right, the accused product or process, and why there is an infringement. Characteristic for the PI is that the claimant only has to make the infringement plausible to the court and not has to prove it. Therefore, an application for a preliminary injunction can be prepared and filed at court very quickly and cost-effectively and is granted within a couple of days (or hours at trade fairs). c) (No) Oral Hearing The judge may consider the application with or without an oral hearing. The court will waive on an oral hearing in very clear cases. In these cases the court will usually make a determination within a few hours or a few days after receiving the application. In more complex cases, the court serves the PI on the defendant and sets a date for a hearing.  At the oral hearing, the parties are able to discuss about all relevant issues and the decision is rendered afterwards. d) Formal Aspects As soon as a PI is issued, the claimant must serve it on the defendant within one month. Subsequently, the defendant must decide whether to accept or appeal the injunction. Thereby, the defendant is allowed to request at any time that the applicant initiates main proceedings. If the defendant does not appeal the injunction after four weeks the applicant could send the defendant a termination letter, seeking an undertaking that the defendant accepts the PI as a final injunction and renouncing all of its legal remedies. If the defendant does not sign the demanding letter the claimant has to initiate legal proceedings. 4. Costs[[{"type":"media","fid":"4420","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-1835 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"145","height":"132"}}]] It is difficult to make a general cost estimate because the court fees strictly depend on the value in dispute of the case. For the first instance the claimant has to expect costs of between 5.000 to 10.000 Euro. The losing party has to refund most of the costs to the prevailing party, whereas, the reimbursement is capped according to the codified court and attorney fees. 5. Summary PI Proceedings in German y are very quick, effective and relatively inexpensive. Due to the fact that specialized IP judges and chambers decide, you will also receive a high quality decision.

The European General Court (ECG) decided on 7 October 2014 that a likelihood of confusion between the word/device trademark “T” of Tifosi Optics and the earlier trademark “T” of Tom Tailor exists (Case No.:T‑531/12). Background of the Case and Subject Matter In September 2009 the American enterprise - Tifosi Optics, Inc. - filed an application for registration of the Community Trademark No. 008543183 at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) (as seen below on the right hand side). In February 2010 the German company - Tom Tailor GmbH - filed a notice of opposition because of the similarity to their word/ device Community Trademark No. 001368232 which you can see left below. Both trademarks are - among others - registered for clothing and glasses. By decision of 17 September 2012, the Second Board of Appeal (BoA) of OHIM annulled the Opposition Division’s decision upholding the opposition:  the identity and similarity of the goods concerned and the degree of similarity between the marks, considered cumulatively, were sufficiently high to justify the conclusion that a likelihood of confusion exists, even if the earlier trademark is to be considered to be of weak distinctive character. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4418","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-1830","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"242","height":"112"}}]] vs.[[{"type":"media","fid":"4419","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-1831","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"259","height":"107"}}]] Decision of the ECG: The ECG confirmed that a likelihood of confusion between the signs exists. The court pointed out that the relevant public contains professionals with a high level of attention and the general public with an average attention span. It also came to the conclusion that the trademarks are visually similar and aurally identical. However, it held that the BoA was wrong in finding the letters T conceptually identical. There is well-established case law that the letters of the alphabet have no semantic meaning and that it is thus impossible to compare them conceptually. Therefore, the ECG came to the result that the decision of the BoA must be confirmed, even if the earlier trademark has a weak distinctive character. With respect to all opposed goods likelihood of confusion exists. Link: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=158372&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1  

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched a new, multilingual terminology portal called „PEARL“ which gives access to scientific and technical terms derived from patent documents.  It helps promote accurate and consistent use of terms across different languages, and makes it easier to search and share scientific and technical knowledge. One of the key features is that the content of the database is available in ten different languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. If there is no equivalent in the target language in the database, WIPO’s machine translation engine may offer a translation proposal. Moreover, all the content has been validated and given a “reliability score”. Furthermore, the database is integrated with PATENTSCOPE so you can search the entire PATENTSCOPE corpus for terms and their equivalents in other languages. Afterwards, the search users are able to rate the quality of the given results. For further information please click here: http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2014/article_0012.html    

Interbrand, started in 1974 with its approximately 40 offices in 27 countries, is one of the biggest and oldest brand consultancy companies around the world. Every year, Interbrand conducts and publishes various studies relating to brands, their value and the impact on companies and consumers. Interbrand’s 15th annual Best Global Brands Report was released on 9 October 2014. Age of You In addition to identifying the top 100 most valuable brands, this year’s Best Global Brands report also examines three pivotal ages in brand history that have reshaped business for the better: the Age of Identity, the Age of Value, and the Age of Experience. Interbrand contends that a new, emerging era is upon the global business world: the Age of You. Analysis The procedure for ranking the Best Global Brands contains three key components: an analysis of the financial performance of the branded products or services, the role the brand plays in purchase decisions, and the brand's competitive strength. Results 2014 The 30 Best Global Brands can be found below: [[{"type":"media","fid":"4415","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-1820","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"488","height":"399"}}]] As you can see, this year Apple and Google maintain their first and second positions and each exceed 100 billion US-dollar in brand value. Huawei Technology Co. Ltd., a Chinese telecommunications and network equipment provider is ranked place 94 with a value of 4,131 billion dollars. Therefore, it is the first Chinese company to appear on Interbrand’s Best Global Brands list in the history of the consultancy’s rankings. The automotive sector dominated the report with 14 brands: Toyota (Rank 8), Mercedes-Benz (Rank 10), BMW (Rank 11), Honda (Rank 20), Volkswagen (Rank 31), Ford (Rank 39), Hyundai (Rank 40), Audi (Rank 45), Nissan (Rank 56), Porsche (Rank 60), Kia (Rank 74,), Chevrolet (Rank 82), Harley-Davidson (Rank 87), and Land Rover (Rank 91). With 13 brands on the list the technology sector follows. Facebook climbed to rank 29 from No. 52 in 2013 and had the highest percentage increase in value from last year: 86 %. One of the reasons for this significant increase is Facebook’s ad business on mobile phones. For the first time in its history, the company reported that revenue from advertising on mobile phones exceeded half of all its advertising for the quarter. For more information on the 2014 ranking, please click on the following link: http://www.interbrand.com/best-global-brands/