The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialized agency of the United Nations headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, in conjunction with the Cornell University and the international business school INSEAD, have just published the Global Innovation Index (GII) Report, in its 7th edition this year. The report ranks 143 countries and economies around the world on the basis of 81 indicators. The theme of the Global Innovation Index 2014 is “The Human Factor in Innovation,” exploring the role of human capital in the innovation process and underlining the growing interest that firms and governments have shown in identifying and energizing creative individuals and teams. 1.Top 10 leaders The “Top 10″ leaders allocated in the Global Innovation Index this year are: Because the  IP firm LexDellmeier is headquartered in Munich, Germany, we are pleased to take note of the fact that Germany  – even if not one of the top ten – at least ranks 13th this year. All of these GII leaders have created well-linked innovation ecosystems, where investments in human capital connected with strong innovation infrastructures contribute to high levels of creativity. Especially the top 25 countries in the GII constantly score high in most indicators and have strengths in areas such as innovation infrastructure, including information and communication technologies; business sophistication such as knowledge workers, innovation linkages, and knowledge absorption; and innovation outputs such as creative goods and services and online creativity. 2.Leaders of the regions: As can be taken from the chart below the leaders in the various regions are: India in Central and Southern Asia, Switzerland in Europe, Barbados in Latin America and the Caribbean, the US in Northern America, Singapore in South East Asia and Oceania, Israel in Northern Africa and Western Asia, Mauritius in Sub-Saharan Africa. For more detailed information and the full report including charts, overviews and other statistics please see: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublications/en/economics/gii/gii_2014.pdf

The Registration of a Community Design offers the option of obtaining a design right that is in force throughout the whole European Union (EU). Outlined below please find some important basics you should know. 1.Geographical Overview A Community Design is a unitary right that covers all 28 Member States of the EU: Austria, Benelux (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 2.Basics A design is defined as "the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colors, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation".   Example 1: The design of a wheel rim for example can be protected as a whole product.     Example 2: A mobile phone keypad can be protected as a part.   For establishing design protection, it is necessary that the design is new and has individual character. To establish novelty, the design must vary from any other prior designs. The character of a design is individual, if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by any design which has been made available to the public. An informed user is a person, who is particularly observant and who has some awareness of the previous state of art. Where a design forms part of a more complex product, the novelty and individual character of the design are judged on the part of the design which is visible during normal use. Otherwise, there is a high variety of protectable products including furniture, clothing, graphic symbols, icons etc. as can be taken from the following examples:                            3. Unregistered and Registered Designs It is possible to receive protection via an unregistered or a registered EU Design. a) Unregistered Community Design The unregistered Community Design has been available since 6 March 2002. It grants the right to inhibit commercial use of intentional copies of the protected design, which are made in bad faith. An unregistered Community Design protects the design for three (3) years from the date on which the design was first made available to the public. There are no possibilities to extend the protection. b) Registered Designs Registered Community Designs came into effect on 1 April 2003. They are protected against similar designs even when the infringing design has been developed in good faith. It is primarily valid for five (5) years from the date of filing and can be renewed in blocks of five  (5) years up to 25 years. c) Advantages and Disadvantages Both of them have advantages and disadvantages. A registered design is stronger and more transparent because it is easy to prove the ownership. An unregistered Design is free of charges, but, it is difficult to prove that a design has been intentionally copied and that the infringer is in bad faith. 4.Application Procedures An unregistered Community Design gives automatic protection without the need for registration. To obtain a registered Community design, it is necessary to file a formal application. Therefore, especially drawings or photographs showing all features of the design have to be shown (see at the examples of the protection of a whole product or a part of it). The filed application (up to seven (7) views) will be reviewed by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). This review proceeding only takes about 3-5 working days, because no substantial examination takes place. OHIM only “examines” if

• the application has formal defects,
• the design conforms with public policy and accepted principles of morality,
• the applied design is qualified to get design protection.

If these conditions are fulfilled, the design will be registered and published in the Electronic Design Gazette. NOTE: OHIM does not examine the novelty or the individual character of the design. This aspect must be researched by a professional, e.g. a lawyer, when it comes to litigation. The official fees to register a Community Design Application are:

• A registration fee of 230 Euros
• A publication fee of 120 Euros

In case of a multiple registrations (second to tenth design)

• A registration fee of 115 Euros
• A publication fee of 60 Euros

From the eleventh design onwards

• A registration fee of 50 Euros
• A publication fee of 30 Euros

The protection is than valid for five (5) years. After that it can be renewed for a total of five (5) terms up to 25 years. 5.Overlap of Design Law and other IP rights Design law often overlaps with other IP rights, especially with copyright or trademark law. For example, a word/device trademark logo can also be registered as a design if it is new and can claim individual character. Similarly, a three-dimensional appearance of a product, which can be protected as a design, may also be registered as a 3D-trademark. Designs may also be protected under copyright law. If on to what extent a product or logo can be protected via trademark, design and/or copyright law depends on the applicable laws of the Member States of the European Union. Contrary to design and trademark law, no European-wide copyright law exists and therequirements for copyright protection have not been harmonized.

The Power 100 is an annual research study produced by one of the world's leading independent brand valuation and strategy consultancy. The study monitors the power of the world's leading spirits and wine brands since nine years. Just recently the results of the study for the year 2014 were published.   Introduction From nearly 10,000 brands in the spirits and wine sectors the study determines the 100 most powerful spirits and wine brands in the world. The value of a brand is determined by a series of factors. A distinction is made between hard and soft measures.   Hard factors   -          Share of market: volume based measure of market share -          Brand growth: projected growth based on 10 years historical data and future trends -          Price positioning: a measure of a brand's ability to command a premium -          Market scope: number of markets in which the brand has a significant presence   Soft factors   -          Brand awareness: a combination of prompted and spontaneous awareness -          Brand relevancy: capacity to relate to the brand and a propensity to purchase -          Brand heritage: a brand's longevity and how it is embedded in local culture -          Brand perception: loyalty and desire for ownership   Procedure A panel of leading experts in the drinks industry individually ranked each brand out of 10 on the above measures. The scores given by the different panel members were combined and averaged to reach a total score for each brand. A total score was reached by multiplying a brand's weighted volume by its brand score, within a defined range. The weighting is designed to adjust the volumes to a comparable level. Brand score is a derivative of the eight measures of brand strength.   Influences of the Developments First of all, the study of 2014 shows that there was a significant growth in the drink market, because of economic growth. The leading alcoholic drink in the world is whiskey. Also the study found out that Scotland is the top country for producing drink brands. The Top 3 of 2014         

1. As you can see, the most valuable spirit brand in the world in 2014 is “Johnnie Walker”. The blended scotch had already been the strongest brand in 2013. One of the reasons for the great success is that Diageo plc, as the owner of the brand produces special edition variants, for example, the 2014 Spice, Gold and Royal Route Editions.
2. The closest competitor “Smirnoff” has an 8% total score difference to “Johnnie Walker”. “Smirnoff” is also a brand of Diageo plc. The brand marketing is working with flavoured varities to keep the vodka attractive.
3. Third place is taken by Bacardi. The recipe of success of Bacardi is volumes growth, a majority share of the market and a rich brand heritage.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Below you can see the list of the top 10 brands including their score.   To see the whole study follow the link: http://www.drinkspowerbrands.com  

The European General Court (EGC) decided that the trademark “GLAMOUR” cannot be registered as Community Trademark because there is likelihood of confusion to the older trademark “TUDOR GLAMOUR” (Case T-1/13 dated July 4, 2014). Introduction Likelihood of confusion is based on the risk that the average consumers could assume that the relevant goods and services derive from the same or connected companies. Therefore, various factors need to be taken into account. On the one hand side, the specific goods and services of the applied for mark and the earlier sign need to be evaluated. On the other hand, the script, sound and meaning of the two trademarks have to be compared. Background of the Case and Subject Matter Advance Magazine Publisher Inc. headquartered in the United States filed an application to register the word mark “GLAMOUR” as a Community Trademark for different goods and services including jewelry and watches. Thereon, the watch manufacturer Montres Tudor SA from Switzerland filed an opposition based on their Community Trademark “TUDOR GLAMOUR” for jewelry and watches. The Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal decided that “GLAMOUR” cannot be registered because there is likelihood of confusion to “TUDOR GLAMOUR”.  

GLAMOUR vs. GLAMOUR TUDOR

 Decision The EGC compared the signs and took note of the fact that both designations share the component “GLAMOUR”. Then the court pointed out that according to the size, number of letters and syllables the word “GLAMOUR” is as important as the first element “TUDOR” within the earlier trademark. The differences between the two signs are not sufficient to rule out the phonetic and visual similarity stemming from the identical second word “GLAMOUR” which is the only part of the trademark. The word “GLAMOUR” stands for splendor and prestige and the word “TUDOR” refers to the Tudor dynasty which was a royal house of Welsh origin which ruled the Kingdom of England in the 15th and 16th centuries. Therefore, the part of the relevant public with English and especially English history knowledge will recognize that the background of both trademarks is different. But, it appears to be problematic that a non-negligible part of the average consumer has no in depth knowledge about the English history and therefore this part will not understand the issue of the word “TUDOR”. On the other hand the word “GLAMOUR” is known by a huge part of the relevant public, who is command of standard English. For this major part of the relevant public which has no English and English history skills the component “TUDOR” has no meaning. Consequently, the majority of the average consumer will only perceive “GLAMOUR” as the main and dominant component. Therefore the court decided that a likelihood of confusion exists and the application “GLAMOUR” is confusingly similar to the prior trademark “TUDOR GLAMOUR” and therefore may not be registered.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruld that the layout of an Apple Store in general may be eligible to be registered as a trademark (Case C-421/13 dated 10 July 2014). Background of the Case and Subject Matter In 2010, Apple obtained from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) the registration of a three-dimensional trademark consisting of the representation, by a design in color, of its so called “flagship stores” (see below) for retail store services featuring computers, computer software, computer peripherals, mobile phones, consumer electronics and related accessories and demonstrations of products relating thereto.     Subsequently, Apple sought to extend this trademark internationally. In January 2013, the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO) refused the extension of that three-dimensional international trademark to Germany because they were of the opinion that the depiction of the space devoted to the sale of the Apple’s products was nothing other than the representation of an essential aspect of that company’s business. The GPTO considered that while it is true that consumers may perceive the layout of such a retail space as an indication of the quality and price bracket of the products, they would not see it as an indication of their commercial origin. Besides, it considered that the retail store depicted in the case before it was not sufficiently distinguishable from the stores of other providers of electronic products. Therefore Apple, appealed to the German Federal Patent Court against the GPTO’s refusal decision. The German Federal Patent Court considered that the layout depicted by the three-dimensional trademark has features that distinguish it from the usual layout of retail stores in that electronic sector. But, the court was not sure if it is compatible with European law. Therefore, it asked the CJEU for a Preliminary Ruling. Preliminary Ruling The CJEU decided that the representation by a design of the layout of a retail store may be registered as a trademark for services consisting in services relating to those goods, but, which do not form an integral part of the offer for sale thereof, provided that the sign is capable of distinguishing the services of the applicant for registration from those of other undertakings and that registration is not precluded by any of the grounds for refusal set out in that directive. Therefore, the German Federal Court now has to decide if Apple's “flagship store” (a) constitutes a sign, (b) is capable of graphic representation and (c) is capable to distinguishing Apple's goods and services from those of other companies.  

The World Customs Organization (WCO) published the Illicit Report 2013.It includes six chapters, each dedicated to one thematic area: Drugs, Revenue, Intellectual Property Rights, Environment, Security and the Customs Enforcement Network (CEN).

For IPR, both an increase of the reporting countries and cases was observed (22,543 cases in 2012 and 24,092 cases in 2013). In 2013 one of the striking features was that more than half of the reported interceptions were illicit pharmaceutical products, followed by counterfeit electronic appliances and illicit foodstuffs – all of which threaten consumer health and safety. It is a dramatic change compared to 2012, where the majority of intercepted commodities were accessories, followed by clothing and pharmaceutical products which came in a third position. According to the report, Nike was the most counterfeit brand, followed by Apple Samsung, Rolex and Louis Vuitton. In China more than 9000 cases of counterfeits were reported, more than in every other country. The United States is the most common destination.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published the Global Challenges Report on June 11, 2014. The study deals with the climate change as one of the biggest global challenges of our time. Therefore, the study analyzes the patent landscapes of four Climate Change Mitigation Technologies (CCMTs): Biofuels, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind energy. The study wants to acclerate policy discussions by providing evidence about innovation trends, technology ownership and other background information in the green tech field. The report shows an increase of patent filing between 2006 and 2011 of 24 % regarding the four selected CCMTs. In fact, between these five years more patents in these sectors have been filed than in the last 30 years (see below). Also interesting is that China and the Republic of Korea have filed the most patents in the last years in relation to the four CCMTs. However in the area of solar photovoltaic the top 20 technology owners are all centered in Asia.   To see the whole report, follow the link: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/policy/en/climate_change/pdf/ccmt_report.pdf

The European General Court (EGC) decided that “JUNGBORN” cannot be registered because there is likelihood of confusion to the older German trademark “BORN” (Case T-401/12, July 11, 2014). Introduction Likelihood of confusion is assessed on the basis of if there is a high risk that the targeted consumers must assume that the relevant goods and services derive from the same or connected companies. Therefore, various factors need to be taken into account. On the one hand side, the specific goods and services of the applied for mark and the earlier sign need to be evaluated. On the other hand, the script, sound and meaning of the two trademarks have to be compared. Background of the Case and Subject Matter In the present case, the Robert Klingel OHG applied for the Community Trademark “JUNGBORN” for different kinds of gourmet food products. Subsequently, Develey Holding GmbH & Co initiated an opposition because of the similarity to their German Trademark “BORN”. They also sell gourmet food products under this trademark name. Therefore, similarities between the specific goods and services are indisputable. Regarding the similarities of the trademarks themselves, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) decided that there is likelihood of confusion. One reason for this decision was that OHIM sees asimilarity between the signs, if one trademark contains the other one and just the beginning varies. Robert Klingel OHG is of the opinion that there is no likelihood of confusion, especially because the focus of their trademark is “JUNG”. This follows from the fact, that the consumer pays more attention beginning of a trademark. Therefore, a similarity between the trademarks is not given from their point of view. Decision The EGC compared the signs and took note of the fact that both designations share the component “BORN”. Even though the word “JUNG” is at the beginning of “JUNGBORN”, the court believes that the average consumer will not perceive the mark as a whole, but, still split it into two parts, namely “JUNG” and “BORN”. In this specific case, the EGC is of the opinion that the component “BORN” stands out and can claim individual character. Therefore the court decided that a likelihood of confusion exists and the application “JUNGBORN” is confusingly similar to the prior trademark “BORN” and therefore may not be registered.

Interbrand, started in 1974 with its approximately 40 offices around the globe, 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.This year they published for the first time a ranking of the 50 best German Brands. The new study published on 6 June 2014 relates to the “Best German Brands 2014″, which does not just give an in-depth insight, but also an overview about new trends and developments. Automotive Brands in Germany The most valuable German brand 2014 is Mercedes Benz with a brand value of 25,54 billion Euros. Competitor BMW is following close behind with a brand value of 25,49 billion Euros. Volkswagen, which is the European market leader is ranked on place five with a brand value of 8,9 billion Euros. Audi made the eighth place and Porsche is ranked as number twelve. All in all, automotive brands from Germany perform extremely well. One reason for this result is that the automotive industry has been investing for many years in the brand management. Telecommunication Brands Deutsche Telekom is ranked as number four. A result of constant and in-depth brand management in the last 20 years. Deutsche Telekom showed that brands always have to face the change of costumers needs. Surprising is that Congstar as a young brand is placed on rank 45 with a brand value of 222 million Euros. This result shows that also new brands can be successful because of a good brand idea and a high flexibility with regard to customers' requirements. Retail Brands in Germany Germany also has strong retail brands. Therefore, 13 German Brands are ranked in the “Best Retail Brands 2014”. Thus, it is not surprising that also some retail brands count to the “Best German Brands”. For example Aldi is ranked 18 with a brand value of 2,18 billion Euros or Edeka, on 27 with a brand value of 1,15 billion Euros and REWE placed on number 41 with a value of 385 million Euros. To reach a high brand value the retail brands have to follow new trends and be quick and innovative. Edeka, for example, is very successful with its own bakery and own products like SOYES (pasta made out of soya). Another strategy of a lot of retailers is to go back to the places where the consumers are, for examples in the city centers, at airports, railway or petrol stations. This development can be seen by projects like “REWE city” or the “REWE Center Concept Stores”. Of course, also salesvia ecommerce are rising. Therefore it is getting more and more important to offer easy assesable online shops for the consumers. Also some shops like Douglas, ranked at place 46 with a brand value of 156 million Euros use successful bonus systems. The Douglas Card for example is used by more than eight million consumers in Europe. Business to Business (B2B) Brands in Germany  B2B describes commerce connections between businesses, such as between a producer and a retailer. The opposite are transactions between business and consumer or government. B2B Brands of Germany as BASF (rank 7 with a brand value of 6,4 billion Euros), Linde (rank 19 with a brand value of 1,72 billion Euros) und Evonik (rank 22 with a brand value of 1,51 billion Euros) have a high potential. Through stronger brands they are able to improve the value of their companies. The ranking shows that they are quick successful with their boarding and marketing strategies. Industry Brands Germany also has got some strong very industry brands. Siemens as the largest technology company in Europe is ranked on place 6 with a value of 6,81 billion Euros. Especially strong is the chemical industry. For example BASF is placed on 7 with a brand value of 6,47 billion Euros, followed by the chemistry and pharma company Bayer ranked on place 10th with a brand value of 5,61 billion Euros.  If you want to see the whole ranking, follow the link: http://www.bestgermanbrands2014.de/en/

The question if and which slogans and claims can receive trademark protection is topic of a lot of disputes in Germany and throughout the European Union. Introduction The protection of slogans is very interesting for brand owners, because slogans are a key element in advertising. The consumers identify themselves with the slogans or associate a slogan with certain products and services. Therefore, slogans are eye catchers and indirectly help to encourage people to choose certain goods or services over others. In principle, slogans can be protected as trademarks. However, many applications fail if they are purely descriptive or lack distinctiveness. Examples The easiest way to outline the difficulties of getting slogans or claims registered as trademarks, is giving some examples.     1. Test it The German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) decided that the slogan „Test it“ for matchsticks of the cigarette producer WEST is protectable, because the combination of words does not describe a special characteristic of them. But, in contrast to matchsticks, the slogan is not protectable for cigarettes because in this connection the slogan is just a demand to taste cigarettes (BGH, I ZB 34/98; 23.11.2000).     2. Das Prinzip der Bequemlichkeit ("The Principle of Comfort") One of the first cases decided in relation to the protection of slogans started with the application for registration as a Community Trademark for the slogan “Das Prinzip der Bequemlichkeit” (The Principle of Comfort) by Erpo Möbelwerke. The first and second instance rejected the protection of the slogan and argued that it did not display any element of imaginativeness. Therefore, the slogan lacks distinctiveness and is not protectable. The European General Court (EGC) overturned the former decisions, because it is not appropriate to apply criteria to slogans, which are stricter than those applicable to other types of trademarks. Therefore, it does not matter that the slogan does not have any element of imaginativeness. In the last instance, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) stressed that the correct test for whether a mark of any kind, including slogans, is devoid of distinctive character, was to ask if the trademark is an indication of the origin of the product (C-64/02 P; 21.10.2004). Thereby, the ECJ cnfirmed the decision of the EGC. Finally the slogan was registered because the slogan “Prinzip der Bequemlichkeit” is to be assessed as being distinctive.     3. Get a break – Get a KitKat The slogan “Get a break – Get a KitKat” is very popular, and nearly everybody connects it with the chocolate bar KitKat. However Nestle, who is the owner of the brand “KitKat” had some difficulties by trying to register the phrase “Have A Break” as a separate trademark. The fundamental problem was that Mars, another chocolate producer, thought the phrase it not distinctive. Therefore, the case went to different UK courts. They all decided that the phrase cannot get protected, because the public is connecting ”Have a break” with KitKat but not with Nestle. But only if the slogan is an indication of the origin, can it receive protection as a trademark. Finally, Nestle appealed to the Court of Appeal, which denoted the following question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ): “May the distinctive character of a mark … be acquired following or in consequence of that use of that mark as part of or in conjunction with another mark?” The answer of the EJC was positive. Therefore, Nestle received protection for the slogan “Have a break” in 2012 (C-353/03; 07.07.2005).     4. Tame it The slogan „Tame it“ for beauty and hair care products is not distinctive, because it is just an invitation to use the products. Therefore, the slogan is just an indication of the positive effect of the product, but not for the origin (T-471/07; 15.09.2009).     5. Vorsprung durch Technik ("Progress through Technology") The slogan „Vorsprung durch Technik“ (Progress through Technology) of Audi got registered because the European Court of Justice (ECJ) overruled all decisions of previous instances. The slogan conveys an objective message to the effect that technological superiority enables better goods and services to be manufactured and supplied. The special aspect about this judgment is that the ECJ is of the opinion that being an objective message, does not however exclude the possibility that the slogan could also be an indication for the origin of the product. Because the slogan is imaginative, new and famous, the ECJ finally came to the result that “Vorsprung durch Technik” is protectable (C-398/08 P; 21.02.2010).     6. Leistung aus Leidenschaft ("Power to Perform") The slogan “Leistung aus Leidenschaft” (Power to Perform) of the Deutsche Bank could not get registered because the European General Court (EGC) decided that the slogan just gives the impression that the Deutsche Bank is performing their services with special enthusiasm. Therefore, it is just descriptive. Also, it is not as imaginative or famous as “Technik durch Vorsprung” and thereby it also cannot serve as an indication of the origin of the product so that the slogan is not protectable (T-539/11; 25.03.2014). Conclusion The success of a trademark application of slogans and claims as trademarks is always uncertain. As the examples show, the result is often not clearly predictable. If is worth applying for the slogan or claim in order to receive protection. However, it is advisable to receiveprior advice by a knowledgeable IP and trademark attorney