The 8th edition of the Global Innovation Index (GII) 2015: “Effective Innovation Policies for Development” is the result of a collaboration between Cornell University, the international business school INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as co-publishers and their knowledge partners. The report ranks 141 countries and economies around the world on the basis of 79 indicators to show new ways that emerging - economy policymakers can boost innovation and spur growth by building on local strengths and ensuring the development of a sound national innovation environment.Top 10 leader 1. Top 10 leaders The “Top 10” leaders allocated in the GII this year are: [[{"type":"media","fid":"4542","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2294 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"421","height":"86"}}]]

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 12th this year.

The results quickly show that the group of the top 25 performers contains only high income economies which maintained their strong positions from the past editions. But, there are two exceptions this year: the Czech Republic (24th) and Ireland (8th) reached a relatively high rank in relation to their income.

2. Top innovators by income group

Below you can see the top innovators per income group. The leaders of the high - income countries are Switzerland, UK, Sweden, Netherlands and the USA. As a result of their world - class universities the USA, the UK and Japan are also the leaders in innovation quality (Scientific publications quality, patent families and university rankings). Top-scoring middle-income economies are China, Malaysia and Hungary. China also leads at the category innovation quality, followed by Brazil and India. Moldova is the top innovator of the lower to middle income economies and Kenya the one of the low income economies. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4543","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2295 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"446","height":"163"}}]] 3. 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, Chile in Latin America and the Caribbean, the US in Northern America, Israel in Northern Africa and Western Asia, Singapore in South East Asia and Oceania, Mauritius in Sub - Saharan Africa. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4544","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2296 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"376","height":"216"}}]] 4. Results Finally, the GII shows an infographic with the Topic “In a perfect world who would do what?” based on the results of the GII 2015: [[{"type":"media","fid":"4545","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2297 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"381","height":"534"}}]] For more detailed information and the full report including charts, overviews and other statistics please see: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/userfiles/file/reportpdf/GII-2015-v5.pdf

On 1 August 2015, the second part of OHIM's (Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market) updated Guidelines entered into force. Since 2013, the Knowledge Circles of OHIM which involves staff from different departments and the Boards of Appeal (BoAs), started uniting the Manuals of trademarks and design practices and “official” Guidelines into a single set of published Guidelines. These Guidelines reflect the practice of the office in the most frequent scenarios. Therefore, they are the main point of reference for users of the Community Trademark system. But, the Guidelines are not legislative texts and therefore they are not binding. To increase consistency and predictability for the users, the Knowledge Circles has to revise the Guidelines in a cyclical process. The modifications are based on the current case-law from the BoAs and the Court of Justice, the operational needs of the OHIM and the outcome of the various convergence projects, such as the harmonization of classification project. Finally, the Knowledges Circles also can consider the feedback of the national and regional IP offices. For the first update process the guidelines were divided in two parts. The first half of the updated Guidelines was adopted in December 2013 and entered into force in February 2014. The second half was adopted in July 2015 by the President of the OHIM on 8 July 2015 (Decision EX-15-2) and entered into force in August 2015. The corresponding documents are available on the website's current trademark practice page and the current designs practice page.

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that one must be strict when comparing a word mark with a three-dimensional mark in order to prevent right owners from monopolizing product shapes by obtaining word mark protection. The BGH concludes that Lindt and Sprüngli AG is not infringing Haribo’s trade mark rights when selling a seated golden chocolate teddy bear with a red ribbon. (Case I ZR 105/14, Judgement of 23 September 2015) Press here to read our earlier blog post about the decision from the Higher Regional Court of Cologne. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4344","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone size-thumbnail wp-image-1489","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"101","height":"150"}}]] [[{"type":"media","fid":"4345","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone size-thumbnail wp-image-1490","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"150","height":"150"}}]] Word mark and two-dimensional device mark  vs. three- dimensional trade mark Background of the case and subject matter The applicant, Haribo, is a well-known German company which produces and sells fruit gum products. Haribo is especially known for its gummi bears and has obtained various German trade mark rights for these, e.g. “Goldbären” (DE 974 380) , “Gold-Teddy” (DE 302 011 030 914) and “Goldbär” (DE 39,922,430). “Goldbär” is also registered as a word/device Community Trade Mark (CMT 009423757). The defendant, Lindt and Sprüngli AG, is a well-known Swiss company which produces and sells chocolate products. Since 2011, Lindt has sold a chocolate figure around Christmas in the shape of a seated bear, rapped in golden foil and with a red ribbon around its neck. This chocolate bear is called the “Lindt Teddy”. In 2012, Lindt filed an application for registration of its three-dimensional trade mark of the “Lindt Teddy” in Germany (Reg. number 1125991). Haribo is of the opinion that Lindt’s chocolate teddy infringes its trade mark rights and constitutes an unfair imitation of the “Goldbären”. On 18 December 2012, the Regional Court of Cologne rendered a decision that there is a likelihood of confusion between the “Lindt Teddy” and the “Haribo Goldbär”. They focused, in particular, on the fact that both companies are in the same industrial sector, that the Goldbär enjoys a high degree of reputation and that among the Christmas products, only Lindt’s teddy chocolate has the same form, golden colour and red ribbon as the Goldbär. Lindt appealed the Regional Court’s decision. On 11 April 2014, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne overturned the Regional Court’s decision. The Higher Regional Court stated that too much emphasis had been put on the colour and shape of the bear in the previous decision. The focus should rather be on the product as a whole and how customers perceive it. The Higher Regional Court pointed out that the well-known name “Lindt” is located in the middle of the chocolate teddy, indicating the commercial origin of the product. Furthermore, also “Lindt” is a very famous brand and the Christmas teddy is in consistency with the successful Easter chocolate rabbit Lindt sells around Easter time. Thus, the Higher Regional Court neither found a likelihood of confusion, nor the existence of unfair competition. The decision of the Higher Regional Court was appealed to the BGH. An interesting question arising in this case is whether pure word marks can be infringed by three dimensional trade marks. The Decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) The BGH upheld the Higher Regional Court of Cologne’s decision and rejected Haribo’s infringement action. They admitted that Haribo’s word marks are well-known in Germany and that the goods in question are highly similar. However, the BGH says that when comparing a word mark with a three-dimensional mark, confusion can only arise from conceptual similarities. It is further stated that there is only a danger of confusion when the word mark is the only and obvious reference perceived by the customers when seeing the three-dimensional product shape. The BGH emphasizes that one must be strict when carrying out this test in order to prevent right owners from monopolizing product shapes by obtaining word mark protection and thus detouring around the stricter requirements for registration of device marks and three-dimensional product shape marks. The BGH ruled out the danger of confusion of association between Haribo’s word marks and the trade dress of Lindt’s chocolate teddies. The infringement action was also rejected in regards to unfair competition law. Firstly, there is a lack of similarity between the device mark showing a standing bear and the Lindt Teddy (shown above). Furthermore, Haribo only registered the “Gold Teddy” mark after it had obtained knowledge of Lindt’s intention to sell a chocolate teddy bear. The BGH also found that Lindt’s chocolate bear shape is not sufficiently similar to Haribo’s fruit gum shape. Press here to read the BGH’s press release in German.

On 1 July 2015, the European General Court (EGC) adopted new Rules of Procedure which replace the Rules of Procedure of 1991. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4541","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-medium wp-image-2277 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"300","height":"200"}}]] The new Rules of Procedure have been adapted to the reality of proceedings currently brought before the General Court. It is now a clear distinction between the three main types of action; 1. Direct actions, in which preliminary issues, applications to intervene and applications for confidential treatment are especially numerous. 2. Actions in the field of intellectual property. 3. Appeals against decision of the Civil Service Tribunal. The intention is to make the procedure more efficient by simplifying the 1991 Rules and thus strengthening the General Court’s capacity to deal with cases within a reasonable time and in accordance with the requirements of a fair trial. In addition, some new rules have been implemented e.g. confidentiality of the information and material produced before the Court and the creation of a Vice-President. This is good news for anyone appealing an OHIM Board of Appeal Community trade mark or design decision to the EGC. For intellectual property matters the following changes have been made:

• Delegation to a single Judge One of the main changes is the extension of the scope of the regulations relating to a single Judge so as to also apply to intellectual property cases. This means that where the question of law or fact to be heard are quite straightforward or the case is considered of limited importance, the case will be determined and heard by the Judge-Rapporteur sitting as a single judge.
• Simplification of the language determination The applicant will choose the language of the intellectual property case if no objection is received in due course. In case of an objection, the language will be the language of the contested decision of the OHIM Board of Appeal.
• New regulation on replacement of a party and submission of a cross-claim If an IP right affected by the proceedings has been transferred to a third party; this third party is now allowed to apply to the General Court to step in instead of the original party. Chapter 3 regulates the content, time-limit and response to a cross-claim.
• Simplification of the written procedure On the contrary to the 1991 Rules, only one single round of pleadings will now be allowed. In addition, it is established in the new rules that the Court set’s the maximum length of the written pleadings.

There are also some general changes that should be taken into account:

• Shorter legal time-limits An application to intervene may only be submitted within six weeks of the publication of the notice of the action in the Official Journal of the European Union. The time limit for a hearing request is now three weeks from the notification to the parties of the closure of the written part of the procedure.
• The General Court can rule without an oral hearing There is no longer a demand for an oral hearing in direct actions if none of the main parties has requested a hearing and if the Court considers that it has sufficient information available from the materials of the file.
• Transitional period Some of the regulations from the Rules of Procedure of 1991 still apply to proceedings brought before the entry into force of the new rules (1 July 2015).

Press here to read the full press release of the EGC, and here to see the new rules.

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4539","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2248 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"466","height":"296"}}]]   On 1 September 2015, the USPTO launched a pilot program allowing, in some circumstances, the amendments to identifications of goods/services in trade mark registrations that would otherwise be beyond the scope of the current identification. Such amendments are only allowed where they are considered necessary because technological developments has changed the manner or medium by which the underlying content or subject matter of the identified products and services are offered for sale or provided to consumers. Requirements and procedure  

• Amendments are permitted upon petition to the Director of the USPTO under Trademark Rule § 2.146. All requirements must be met and a fee must be paid. Amendments will not be permitted prior to a trade mark application during the pilot period.
• The petition procedures only apply to amendments considered to be beyond the scope of the current identification. For example: A petition is not necessary for an amendment from “newsletters in the field of accounting” in International Class 16 to “providing on-line newsletters in the field of accounting” in International Class 41. Regardless of the change in classification, the amendment falls within the scope of the original wording, and would be permitted under current practice.
• The petitioner must request a waiver of the “scope” rule under Trademark Rule § 2.173 (e), which prohibits amendments to the identification of goods and services in a registration.
• Amendments will only be permitted where the petitioner is no longer able to show use of the mark with the goods/services in their original form due to evolving technology. The petitioner must submit an example showing that the mark is still used on other goods/services reflecting the evolved technology, and that the underlying content or subject matter remains unchanged. The petitioner must also declare that in the absence of an amendment, he would be forced to delete the original goods/services from the registration and thus lose protection for the underlying content or subject matter.
• If the petitioner continues to use the mark with the goods/ services in their original form, a new trade mark application may be filed in order to seek registration for the evolved goods/Services.
• Amendments that alter the classification of goods and services or that change the identification from goods to services (or vica versa) are not excluded from consideration. However, the proposed amendment must comply with all applicable rules and requirements.
• U.S. registrations under § 66 (a) of the Trademark Act are based on the underlying international registration for a period of five years from the international registration date. Therefore, the scope of international registration must be included in the assessment of the acceptability of the amendment. Registrations under § 44 (e) of the U.S. Trademark Act exist, on the contrary, independently of the underlying foreign registration. Thus, the scope of the foreign registration will not be taken into consideration when determining acceptability of the amendment.
• In order to reduce the possibility of third-party harm, the USPTO will post a non-exhaustive list of acceptable amendments under the new practice on its website. This will be updated regularly as amendments are permitted. Interested parties can comment on the proposed changes for 30 days after publication. These comments will be taken into consideration when assessing the third-party harm aspect of the petition.
• The petitioner must additionally declare that it will not file an affidavit or declaration of incontestability under §15 of the Trademark Act, as to the evolved goods or services for a period of at least 5 years from the date of acceptance of the amendment.
• The duration of the pilot program is not fixed, but depends on the volume of requests.
• At the end of the pilot period, the Office will assess whether such amendments should be permitted on a permanent Basis.

  Examples of acceptable amendments [[{"type":"media","fid":"4540","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-medium wp-image-2250 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"281","height":"300"}}]]

• “Phonograph records featuring music” in International Class 9 to “Musical sound recordings” in International Class 9.
• “Telephone banking services” in International Class 36 to “On-line banking services” in International Class 36.
• “Entertainment services, namely, an ongoing comedy series provided through cable television” in International Class 41 to “Entertainment services, namely, an ongoing comedy series broadcast via the Internet” in International Class 41.

Examples of unacceptable amendments

• “Downloadable software for use as a spreadsheet in the field of accounting” in International Class 9 to “Providing on-line non-dowloadable software for use as a spreadsheet in the field of business management” in International Class 42.

The subject matter of the spreadsheet software has changed from accounting to business Management.

• “Printed magazines in the field of finance “ in International Class 16 to “Providing on-line magazines in the field of finance” in International Class 41.

The petitioner is still using the goods in their current form and would therefore not be able to show that in the absence of an amendment, the petitioner would lose protection in the registration in relation to the underlying content of the original goods. The petitioner may file a new trade mark application for the services in International Class 48.

• “Video game tape cassette and video game cartridges” in International Class 9 to “Video game discs and video game cartridges” in International Class 9.

Even though the petitioner is no longer using the mark on “video game tape cassettes”, it is still using the mark on “video game cartridges”  and would not lose protection in the registration in relation to the underlying content of the original goods. The petitioner may file a new trade mark application for “video game discs” in International Class 9. For more detailed information, please take a look at the official announcement of the USPTO here.

The European General Court (EGC) rules that a word with laudatory connotations may be registered as a trade mark if it does not specifically describe the goods and services and not all of its meanings are exclusively laudatory. (Judgement: T-611/13 of 15 July 2015) [[{"type":"media","fid":"4538","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-medium wp-image-2241 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"300","height":"179"}}]] Background of the Case and Subject Matter On 13 August 2009, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) approved the International Registration No. 0797277 of Effect Management & Holding GmbH for the word/device mark “HOT” for, in particular, cosmetics and sanitary products. The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) approved protection of the mark in the European Union on 26 November 2010 for Class 3 and 5. On 6 April 2011 the registration was challenged by Australian Gold LLC. They considered the mark to be purely descriptive and to lack a distinctive character. The Cancellation Division of OHIM partly upheld the cancellation action. The decision was appealed on 10 October 2012. The question was whether the mark “HOT” is a laudatory term which exclusively describes certain characteristics of goods and services, or if it is laudatory in a broader sense i.e. if it refers to vague positive connotations without specifically referring to the goods and services themselves. In the contested decision of 10 September 2013, the Fourth Board of Appeal declared that registration could only be rejected for “massage oils, gels” in Class 3 and “lubricant for pharmaceutical use” in Class 5. It was found that these goods are intended to be applied to the skin through repetitive motions, which creates a sensation of “heat”. For the remaining goods the Board ruled that the word “HOT” is neither descriptive nor lacks the necessary distinctiveness. The Decision of the European General Court (EGC) The EGC agrees that the mark “HOT” is descriptive for the goods “massage oils, gel” in Class 3 and “lubricant for pharmaceutical use” in Class 5. However, the Court rules that OHIM wrongfully concluded that the mark is not descriptive for “perfumes, essential oils, cosmetics” as “massage oils, gels” are mere examples of that broader category of goods, which is indicated by the word “including” within the list of goods in Class 3. As for “washing and bleaching preparations; soaps” in Class 3 and “food supplements for medicinal purposes” in Class 5, the Court concludes that the word “HOT” is not describing the contested goods as it does not indicate the temperature of these goods. The positive connotations of the word “HOT” are too vague to create a direct link to these goods. The Court refers to an earlier decision of the German Federal Court of Justice from 2014, where the word/device mark “HOT” was considered devoid of any distinctive character. The Court states that even though they may take rulings from national courts into consideration, they are in no way bound by their decisions. On the contrary, the EGC makes an interesting statement regarding the distinctiveness of the mark. It rules that it is not sufficient in itself that the word “HOT” may have a sale promoting effect. In order to reject a mark it must be proven that the mark exclusively is a sale promoting slogan and thus lacks distinctiveness. The Court finds that Australian Gold LLC has failed to prove this as the word “HOT” has several meanings e.g. warm, spicy, appealing and attractive. The European Court of Justice has in an earlier case ruled that it is sufficient for refusal of a trade mark that at least one of its possible meanings is descriptive in relation to the relevant goods and services (Doublemint C-191/01). The interpretation of the General Court in the “HOT”-case creates a tension with the earlier judgement. In addition, there have been some ambiguous results in earlier case law regarding registration of laudatory signs. This makes it hard to predict whether a laudatory sign will be considered sufficiently distinctive for registration in the future.

The German Federal Court of Justice ruled on two aspects of trade mark law in its recent decision. The conclusion of the Court was, firstly, that a mark which is registered in black and white is not identical with a mark in colour unless the difference is insignificant. Secondly, the production of plaques consisting merely of a car producer’s trade mark falls within the monopoly granted by the exclusivity right of the trade mark proprietor.    (Judgement: I Z 153/14 of 12 March 2015) [[{"type":"media","fid":"4537","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-thumbnail wp-image-2223 alignnone","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"150","height":"150"}}]]        vs.             [[{"type":"media","fid":"4536","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2222 size-thumbnail alignnone","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"150","height":"143"}}]] Background of the case and subject matter The applicant, the well-known German car manufacturer, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW), is the proprietor of the registered German word/figurative mark No. 39644028 (on the left above). The mark is registered in black and white and is protected for, among other goods, plaques. The defendant marketed spare parts for cars, both nationally and internationally. Among these parts were plaques (on the right above) sold by the defendant under the product description Repl. 5114 8 132 375. These plaques can be attached to the bonnet or tailgate of the cars produced by BMW. BMW considered the plaques to be infringing their trade mark rights. The defendant, on the other hand, was of the opinion that it had a permissible spare part business, in which the use of brands was forcibly allowed. The Regional Court of Hamburg ruled in favour of the applicant and demanded the defendant to provide information on the use of the mark, to refrain from further sales of the plaques and to reimburse BMW’s damages caused by the defendant’s use (Judgement of March 22, 2011 312 O 366/10). The defendant appealed the judgement, but the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg dismissed the appeal and upheld the previous decision (Judgement of June 5, 2014 5 U 106/11). This decision was appealed to the German Federal Court of Justice. The Decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) The applicant successfully argued that the defendant’s plaques infringed BMW’s trade mark rights and the Court ruled that the applicant was entitled to the claims as ruled in the previous instances. However, the infringement could not be based on the German Trade Mark Act Sec. § 14 (2) No. 1 (which is implementing Art. 5 (1) of the Community Trade Mark Directive). The German Federal Court of Justice stated that for the assessment of whether a trade mark infringement is present within the meaning of § 14 (2) No. 1 Trade Mark Act, only the trade mark registration and not the specific use of the trade mark on the goods are taken into consideration. BMW had only brought forward the mark which was registered in black and white, without relying on a coloured version. The Court referred to a ruling of the European Court of Justice (LTJ Diffusion) where it was stated that “a sign is identical with a trade mark only where it reproduces, without any modifications or addition, all the elements constituting the trade mark or where, viewed as a whole, it contains differences so insignificant that they may go unnoticed by an average consumer”. An insignificant difference between two marks is a difference that a reasonably observant consumer will perceive only upon side by side examination of the marks. Thus, the German Federal Court of Justice stated that a sign which is registered in black and white is not identical with a coloured version of the same sign, unless the difference in colour is insignificant. The overall impression of the plaque in question was predominantly characterized by the blue colour of two of the four central areas of the character, and the Court did therefore not find the plaque to be identical to the applicant’s protected mark. It was found to be significant variations in the colour schemes between the two marks. This assessment corresponds to the controversial “Common Communication on the Common Practice on the Scope of Protection of Black and White Marks” of 15 April 2014, presented by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and national trade mark offices. The Communication does not determine the issue of identical signs for infringement cases, but, the German Federal Court made, through its ruling, sure that the question of identity is to be assessed according to the same principles for relative grounds for refusal and infringement issues. Subsequently, the German Federal Court based the infringement of BMW’s trade mark rights on the likelihood of confusion under Sec. § 14 (2) No. 2 of the German Trade Mark Act. The goods in question were identical and the earlier mark enjoyed a high level of distinctiveness. The variations in colour schemes were not sufficient to prevent the finding of a high similarity of the signs. Furthermore, the German Federal Court acknowledged that spare parts can only be sold if they include or can be equipped with the BMW plaque. In this case, the abbreviation “Repl” on the backside of the goods was not sufficient to indicate the intended purpose of the good as a spare part and thus engage the derogation for spare part businesses set out in Sec. § 23 No. 3 of the German Trade Mark Act. The majority of customers would not by this understand that the goods are not those of the trade mark proprietor’s. The Court ruled that the production of plaques consisting merely of the car producer’s trade mark itself falls within the monopoly granted by the exclusivity right of the trade mark proprietor. Click here to read the full judgement of the German Federal Court of Justice.

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4533","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2206 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"200","height":"118"}}]] The Situation Report on Counterfeiting in the European Union (EU), prepared by Europol and OHIM through the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights is a first try to capture the complex reality of counterfeiting in the EU in 2015. 1. Introduction Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) make sure that innovators and creators receive profit for their work, encourage investment in research and create growth as well as quality jobs. IPR intensive industries account for more than a quarter of all jobs and more than a third of GDP in the EU. This demonstrates the important role of these rights for the economy and society in the EU, as well as the scale of potential damage that can be caused when they lose their value because of counterfeiting. 2. Spectrum of products Counterfeited goods are no longer just poor quality clothing and accessories of luxury brands. Rather, counterfeited goods can be found in all sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, electronic goods, household products, cosmetics, automotive spare parts, pesticides, food and beverages. This can be very dangerous for consumers: for example, cases of shampoo found to cause chemical burns to the scalp, cosmetics containing multiple unknown and sometimes toxic substances, and, using unlicensed or counterfeited batteries and laptop or phone chargers has resulted in explosions and fires. 3. Source countries of counterfeit goods Not surprisingly, you can see below that the source country for over two thirds of counterfeit goods circulating in the EU is China. But, China is also a primary source country for the cheap production of legitimate goods. As you can also see, the majority of source countries for counterfeits are outside the EU, although the report also underlined domestic EU production originating from Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal, and the UK. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4534","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2207 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"372","height":"154"}}]] A lot of the source countries are specialized in certain categories. For example India is focused on pharmaceuticals and Turkey on foodstuffs and cosmetics. 4. Transit of counterfeit goods Products entering into Europe from the Far East and South East Asia mostly transit through Egypt, Hong Kong, Morocco, Singapore or the United Arab Emirates. These transit points are major hubs for shipping container traffic and have large free trade zones. The counterfeiters abuse this world-wide infrastructure of 3.000 free trade zones in 135 countries for their business. Upon arriving, they change, document and relabel container loads to conceal the place of origin of the goods. Afterwards, they complete the manufacturing process by adding trademarks or packaging. This way the products reach the countries of sale. 5. Sales Internet and e-commerce have become the most significant enablers for the distribution and sale of counterfeit goods because of its apparent anonymous character, its ability to operate across various jurisdictions, and its potential for presenting sophisticated replicas of official web shops. 6. Full Report[[{"type":"media","fid":"4535","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2208 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"91","height":"126"}}]] For detailed information (including the above chart), please see this link with all of the statistics.

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4529","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2196 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"131","height":"109"}}]] The European General Court (EGC) upholds the registrations of the shape of the Lego mini-figures as Community Trademarks (CTMs) (Judgments dated 16 June 2015; Cases T-395/14 and T-396/14). Background of the Case and Subject Matter On 18 April 2000, the Danish company Lego Juris A/S registered the following three-dimensional CTMs (No.: 000050450 and 000050518) with the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) in respect of, inter alia, games and playthings. Bevor, these registrations, the mini figures were protected under a technical patent which was registered in the 1970s. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4532","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter wp-image-2199","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"502","height":"211"}}]] In 2012, the British competitor Best-Lock, which uses similar mini - figures since 1998, applied for a declaration of invalidity relating to all of the goods protected by the CTMs. The application was based on the fact that the shape of the goods in question is determined by the nature of the goods themselves. Furthermore, Best-Lock is of the opinion that the toy figures in question, both as a whole and in their particulars, involve a technical solution because the shape of the mini - figures are determined by the fact that they are part of a toy that involve “interlocking building blocks for play purposes”. OHIM rejected the applications for a declaration of invalidity. Therefore, the toy manufacture Best-Lock applied to the EGC for annulment of OHIM’s decisions.   Decision of the Court The EGC dismissed Best-Lock’s appeal. First of all, the EGC rejects the complaint that the shape of the goods in question is determined by the nature of the goods themselves because Best-Lock has not put forward any arguments to support that assertion. Moreover, the EGC came to the result that the key elements (heads, bodies, arms and legs) of the shape of the mini - figures did not actually involve the ability to join them to other building blocks. Particularly, the graphical representation of the hands of the figures, the protrusion on their heads and the holes under their feet and inside the backs of their legs do not necessarily enable it to be known whether those components have any technical function and, if so, what that function is. Therefore, the EGC came to the result that there is no evidence which prove to permit the inference that the shape of the mini - figures is, as such and as a whole, necessary to enable the figures to be joined to interlocking building blocks. Moreover, the court is convinced that the purpose of the shape is just to confer human traits on the mini - figures. These are necessary because the figures represent characters which are used by children in an appropriate play context. Consequently, the EGC concludes that the characteristics of the shape of the figures in question are not necessary to obtain a technical result.

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4528","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-medium wp-image-2189","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"300","height":"300"}}]] This year LexDellmeier is for the first time a part of the European Law Students’ Association’s Student Trainee Exchange Programme. The European Law Student’s Association (ELSA) is an international, independent, non-political, non-profit-making organisation run by and for students with over 40.000 members at nearly 300 faculties throughout 43 countries in Europe. ELSA provides for the Student Trainee Exchange Programme (STEP), which is an outstanding opportunity for law students and young lawyers to gain practical legal experience abroad and to get to know the culture of another country. This year LexDellmeier has decided to accept two interns from another country, each for a period of three months I therefore have the pleasure to be LexDellmeier’s intern from mid-July to mid-October 2015. My name is Elisabet Høines Totland and I am currently in my fifth year of law school in Bergen, Norway. I was introduced to Intellectual Property Law during my exchange semester in the Netherlands. Studying IP law made me eager to enhance my knowledge and to work more within this field of law. Throughout law school I have aimed to work in an international atmosphere, and I thus seized the opportunity when the IP law firm LexDellmeier offered an internship in the IP capital of Europe. I am eager to get started and to learn more about German and European IP law through conducting research and supporting the lawyers in the firm and writing interesting articles for this blog. If you are interested in becoming a part of the STEP Programme, you can check out http://elsa.org/page/traineeships/ for more information.