History The World Intellectual Property Office’s (WIPO’s) member states designated April 26 – the day on which the WIPO Convention came into force in 1970 – as World Intellectual Property Day with the aim of increasing the general understanding of Intellectual Property, including trademarks, designs, patents, utility models etc. Each year, a special topic and focus is picked. This year’s World Intellectual Property Day 2014 focuses on “Movies – a Global Passion”. This theme is focused on because watching movies has affected people for over 100 years now and also gives work to the thousands of people who are employed in the film industry. And movies are protected by the copyright law. Events 2014 Accordingly, a lot of events for interested people are planned all over the world. In Germany for example between 22-27April 2014, Microsoft Berlin is holding an exhibition in their local   cafe     “The Digital Eatery” during which visitors can understand the value of Intellectual Property.In Munich, there will be a workshop about designs, trademarks and patents. To find a summary of all events in Germany please be referred to the following link: http://www.dpma.de/service/seminare_veranstaltungen/welttagdesgeistigeneigentums2014/index.htm Especially interesting will be the WIPO Film Festival between 24 and 28 April, 2014 at the Grütli Cinémas in Geneva, during which five films on IP, creativity and innovation will be shown.

On 11 April 2014 the Higher Regional Court of Cologne overturned the first instance decision in the trademark battle between the two well-known candy manufactures Haribo (gummi bears) and Lindt (chocolate). The Regional Court Cologne came to the decision that there is likelihood of confusion between the “Lindt Chocolate Teddy” and the “Haribo Goldbär”(LG Köln on 18.12.2012; Decision 33 O 803/11). The Higher Regional Court instead decided totally different and has to come to the conclusion that the Haribo Goldbär is not infringed by the sale of the Lindt Chocolate Teddy (see: press release in German OLG Köln on 11.04.2014; Decision 6 U 230/12). This decision is especially interesting because there is no settled case law in Germany yet whether two dimensional design or pure word marks can be infringed by three dimensional objects.    Goldbär/Gold-Teddy                        word mark   +    two- dimensional design mark vs. three- dimensional object   Background of the Case and Subject Matter In the present case, the well-known German company “Haribo” filed an opposition against the “Lindt and Sprüngli AG”. Both are famous producers of sweets. Haribo has various German trademark rights for the words “Goldbär” and “Gold-Teddy”, the shapeless color mark “gold” and a word/design Community Trademark for “Goldbär” (see above). Haribo is of the opinion that the “Lindt Chocolate Teddy” infringes their protected word marks and their design marks (see above). Of importance to know is that the Haribo “Goldbär” can claim a high reputation of 90 %. “Lindt” instead argued that the “Chocolate Teddy” for the Christmas time is a logical development of the “Lindt Rabbit” for Easter. Attention should also be paid to the selling time around Christmas. During this time the customers are used to a wide range of chocolate animals with many different designs and in countless variations, especially in gold foil with red bows and ribbons. Also, Lindt’s sweets are made out of chocolate and quite different from the gummi bears of Haribo which are made out of wine gummi. Finally, Lindt’s “Choclate Teddy” is three dimensional and Haribo’s protected marks are two dimensional or words marks. All in all, Lindt sees no likelihood of confusion. Decision In first instance the Regional Court of Cologne decided that a likelihood of confusion exists. The court’s decision is based on the fact that Lindt and Haribo are from the same industrial sector, the high reputation of Haribo’s “Goldbär” and the fact that even during Christmas time only Lindt’s “Teddy” has the same form, color and ribbon like Haribo’s “Goldbär”. As a result, the Chocolate Teddy can be seen as an infringement of the protected word “Goldbär” and the word/design mark of the “Goldbär”. Therefore the Lindt “Teddy” as a three dimensional object infringes Haribo’s trademark rights. Lindt appealed this decision and has succeeded before the Higher Court of Cologne on 11 April 2014. Their point of view is totally different and overruled the first instance decision. In the opinion of the Higher Court, the first instance put too much emphasis on the color and the shape of the bear. In the court's view, the focus in this case should be on the product as a whole and how customer perceives it. The court also especially takes into account the well-known name “Lindt” located in the middle of the Choco Teddy which indicates the origin of the product. The court does not expect that Lindt wants to capitalize on the high reputation of the Haribo “Goldbär” because Lindt’s brand is very famous as well. Rather, the “Choclate Teddy” is in consistency based on the success of the “Easter Chocolate Rabbit” of Lindt. Consequently, Lindt may still sell its “Chocolate Teddy”, whereas, both parties wish this case to be decided by the German Supreme Court... therefore, the battle is likely to be continued.

The German government last year decided to modify parts of its national patent law. Therefore, as of April 1, 2014, the following most important modifications in German Patent Law have entered into force: - The time period to submit translations of English or French patent applications filed has been extended to 12 months after the filing date or 15 months after the priority date. If the filer does not submit the translation in time, the application is deemed to be withdrawn. - The content of the search report is extended to a provisional assessment of the patentability of the invention. As a result, the fees increase by 50 Euros. Thereby, the patent filer should have a better basis for the basis to decide if he wants to continue the patent prosecution process. - An official hearing within the examination process must now be granted in case it is requested and such hearings are in general public. - The opposition period has been extended from three (3) to nine (9) months. - Additionally, a new explicit legal structure has been created for the online access to files. This modification was necessary because of data protection and copyright laws.

Just recently, WIPO published statistics on trademark, design and patent filings in 2013. The growth of the filings per country is ranked, as well as the top technologies and largest files. Additionally, the annual statistics reflect industry Trends and also indicate future developments. For a company it is of upmost importance to protect their intellectual property by filing patents, trademarks and designs. There are a lot of reasons why it is so important for every company to apply for and seek registration of their intellectual property rights. The most important one is that if the patents, trademarks or designs of a company are not protected properly, anybody can use their intellectual property and participate in their success. WIPO Statistics The 2013 WIPO statistics reveal. 5,1 % more patent applications, 6,4% more international trademark applications and 14,8 % more design applications than in 2012. This increase sets a new record this year.     Patent Filing Industry Focus Especially USA, Japan and China increased their patent applications significantly. Most of the patent applications were filed in the sectors: electrical machinery, apparatus, energy, computer technology as well as in the area of medical technology and measurement apparatus. The Japanese company Panasonic outperformed the Chinese company ZTE Corporation, which was the largest filer in 2012. Even through Germany had fewer applications than in 2012, it is ranked no.4 worldwide. The German company “Robert Bosch” counts to the largest filers in 2013.   Trademark Filings The most active users 2013 of the international trademark system here Germany, USA and France. All in all European, countries dominate the 50 applicants’ list. Trademark applications are mostly in the fields of computer electronics, business and technology services. The Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis was the largest trademark filer in the world in 2013. The German pharma company, Boehringer Ingelheim, is ranked 3rd.   Design Filings The growth of design applications was paramount. Switzerland had the most applications for designs, followed by Germany and Italy. Packages, container, clocks, watches and furnishings were the main sectors. The Swiss watchmaker Swatch continued its leading position with 113 different design applications. The German companies Daimler and Volkswagen are ranked 4 and 5.   Conclusion These statistics show that it is becoming more and more important to protect patents, trademarks and designs in our global innovation system. A good and strategically aligned protection is not just a significant part of the value for a company, itself, but also a prerequisite to keep competitors away and be successful.

On Thursday, 13 March 2014, the 2nd INTA IP Paralegal Roundtable was hosted at the Munich Bar Association. The four-hour event - thanks to the organizing committee, speakers and sponsors - with approx. 70 attendees - was an overwhelming success.

As a member of the INTA Trademark Administrators Committee and also on behalf of the members of the organization team (Ingrid Fuchs, Melanie Schulze, Susanne Ferstl, Erna Aigner, Tess Gamon, Angela Mamuzic, Kathrin Geyer, Yvonne Bender) who all spent and invested their free time to make this event happen, we would like to thank everyone for either supporting or attending this year's IP Paralegal Roundtable.

Close to 70 persons again attended this year's meeting hosted in Munich, Germany. A special thanks goes to INTA and its team, the TMA Committee and our sponsors, Coresearch, a Wolters Kluwer company, and GSI Office Management, who sponsored the After Networking Event at the Vino Caffé. If anyone who attended the event did not receive a certificate of attendence, please contact the bar association directly at: seminare@rak-m.de

The speakers were so kind enough to send us their presentations (in German). You are welcome to download the documents and pictures.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Schedule and Presentations INTA_Schedule_RT_2014 Vortrag_Dr_Kinkeldey_Haftung_Internetplattformen Vortrag_Dr_Kinkeldey_Rechtserhaltende_Benutzung Vortrag Tess Gamon Kanzlei Unternehmen Vortrag Herr Hochmuth_DPMA_Recherche Vortrag_Herr_Vyshnetskyy_Selbstaendigkeit Vortrag Yvonne Bender Weiterbildung Networking ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Pictures at the Munich Bar Association and at the After Networking Event The 2nd INTA IP Roundtable again was a great success. This time the Munich Bar Association was so kind as to host the event and issue certificates of attendance for the approx. 70 participants. Below please see pictures of the workshop held and the After Networking Event.

The EGC (European General Court) decided that a yellow curved line cannot be registered as a position mark as it as it lacks distinctiveness (Decision T-331/12 dated 26 February 2014). Introduction In order to decide if a mark lacks the necessary distinctiveness or not, various aspects need to be taken into account. First of all, the court has to analyze the specific goods and services of the applied for trademark, and furthermore it has to determine if intended brand is capable to enable the average consumers to identify the product’s origin. Background of the Case and Subject Matter In the present case, the German applicant Sartorius Lab Instruments GmbH & Co. KG, filed for the following Community Trademark, a yellow curved line - so called “position mark” – as seen below:     The applicant is convinced that the yellow line (as seen above) at the bottom of an electronic screen is recognized by the average consumer. The applicant is not of the opinion that the customer perceives the yellow line as decorative element.  For these reasons, the applicant argued, the yellow curved line, should be registered as a trademark as the average, generally well-informed consumer will recognize the product’s origin. Decision of the EGC The EGC asserts that it is not unusual to include an element of color around a screen. Therefore the average customer does not connect a colored ornament with a special trademark. The yellow curved line does not have any recall value. Finally, the EGC decided the “yellow line” will not be recognized by the customers as an indication to the origin of the product. For this reason it cannot be registered as a Community Trademark.

OHIM’s Second Board of Appeal decided on 29 January 2014 that Parobook is to be registered because no liklihood of confusion to Facebook is given (Case R 254/2013-2). Introduction In order to assess whether marks are confusingly similar or not, 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, OHIM has to compare the script, sound and meaning of the two trademarks and also take the distinctiveness and reputation of the earlier sign into account. Background of the Case and Subject Matter In the present case, the well-known trademark “Facebook” filed an opposition against the Community Trademark Application “Parobook”. Both designations are aword/design creations. Facebook is of the opinion that “Parobook” is too similar to Facebook, especially because “Facebook” has gained a high reputation - even outside the field of social networking.

vs.

Decision The Second Board of Appeal carefully compared the signs and took note of the fact that both designations both share the word “book”. “Book”, however, is a descriptive word, which is understandable by the general public. The significant differences are in the word beginnings, namely “paro” and “face”. They are are visually as well as aurally totally different. In addition, “Facebook” is white over blue and “Parobook” is white over red. As a result the signs differ significantly. When comparing the specific goods and services of both trademarks, the Second Board of Appeal found some concurrent services, especially in the field of social networking. But, there are differences in relation to the target group. “Parobook” wants to bring Spanish people without work together with the ambition and aim that they support each other and to make it easier to be informed about new job openings. Facebook instead gives people all over the world the chance to communicate via private chats to each other, share information, pictures, post various information to their friends. Contrary to the first instance decision, the Second Board of Appeal at OHIM decided, that  despite the reputation of Facebook, there is no likelihood of confusion between “Facebook” and “Parobook”. It is rather likely that this decision will be appealed by Facebook – and we will keep you posted.

The WIPO 2013 Report was published recently and reveals new statistics and information about the great influence and importance of brands in our society, in the global economy and with resepct to innovation infrastructure.

                                                                                                                                                                                

Introduction WIPO's World Intellectual Property Report 2013 contains a great amount of information about trademarks. Trademarks are a key element to success because they affect a customers choice. In addition, they reflect trends and indicate future developments. The report gives an interesting insight to the different behavior of brands around the world. Brand Value The report shows how important brands are and especially how valuable they can be. The value of a brand always depends on the degree of brand awareness and their degree of esteem. There are different possibilities to calculate the value of a brand. The most popular ranking rangers are Interbrand, BrandZ and Brand Finance. As you can see below, all valuations came to the same result that Apple is the most valuable brand in the world. The estimated value is between 185, 1 and 87,3 billion US $. The high difference depends on the different ways of valuation. As you can see from the chart below, all in all, the brand value takes between 21% and 46,7% of the market capitalization. Conclusion The report contains about 140 slides and contains too much information to summarize here. But, we can only recommend you to take a look at the full report.

The Brand Finance Banking 500 was published in the February 2014 edition of ‘The Banker’ magazine. The largest banks of the world are ranked by the value of their trademarks. The annual study reflects the industry trends and indicates future developments. Introduction The value of a company also includes the value of brands. Customers often associate positive experiences with a well-known brand name. These feelings are reinforced by advertisement. Through their high distinctive character the holder of “more” valuable brands can request more money for their products or services and thereby increase their customer basis. For this reason it is so important for every company to apply for and seek registration for their brand name. If the brand is not protected properly, anybody can take part in or “capitalize” on the companies’ success by using their brand name or symbol. If a brand is protected and enforced, a unique value is created. There are a variety of different, complex models in order to determine the value of a brand. Some industries conduct rankings about the value of their brands. Those rankings are a good possibility for the specific business or company to appreciate its own economic increase, reveal new trends and to prognosticate future developments. Brand value of banks worldwide Below is an extract of the 2014 annual worldwide ranking about the trademark value of banks. Because of the high participation of 500 banks, the ranking is quite significant. The most valuable bank name in 2014 in the world is Wells Fargo with a value of approximately 30 billion US-Dollars. This example shows, how important and worthwhile a good protected brand is. Altogether, the banks of the industrial western countries can be quite pleased with the outcome of the ranking this year. Especially the banks “BNP Paribas”, “HSBC”, “UBS” from Europe and the “Bank of America” and “Citygroup” from the United States significantly  increased their brand values. Brand value of banks in Germany Finally, we take a closer look at the value of German Bank Brands. The trademark value of “Deutsche Bank” declined this year. The difference is about one billion US Dollar between 2013 and 2014. But, nonetheless, it is still worth approximately 13.5 billion US Dollars which  makes it to the most valuable bank brand of Germany and is ranked 15 in the world. For more information on the German ranking, see the chart below. Conclusion This ranking shows how powerful, important and worthwhile it is to protect the brands in all industries. A good and professional trademark strategy and protection is a significant part of the company value.  

A global campaign by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) was launched on 14 January 2014 in order to raise awareness among consumers of the $250 billion a year illicit trafficking of counterfeit goods. The

"COUNTERFEIT - DON'T BUY INTO ORGANIZED CRIME" CAMPAIGN 

informs consumers that by buying counterfeit goods organized criminal groups are funded and consumer health and safety risks are at stake. The unlawful trafficking and sale of counterfeit goods provides criminals with a significant source of income and facilitates the laundering of other illicit proceeds.

As a crime which touches virtually everyone in one way or another, counterfeit goods pose a serious risk to consumer health and safety. With limited legal regulation and very little recourse, consumers are at risk from unsafe and ineffective products and faulty counterfeit goods can lead to injury and, in some cases, death. Tyres, brake pads and airbags, aeroplane parts, electrical consumer goods, baby formula and children’s toys are just some of the many different items which have been counterfeited.

For more information please see UNODOC's executive summary and focus sheet as well as the official video below.