fInLAnD
fInLAnD
tHE sUPREME CoURt of fInLAnD HELD tHAt
ConsEnt to UsE A CoMMUnItY tRADEMARK WAs
VALID AGAInst A HoLDER of A nAtIonAL tRADEMARK
Cross-platform use of protected content
In a recent trademark case, the Supreme Court of Finland held that consent
to use a Community Trademark was valid against a holder of a national
Another question addressed this year concerned multichannel broadcasting
trademark. Th e right to use a Community Trademark is not restricted due
of radio and television programmes. It has been alleged, mainly by the
to a later national registration of a partially identical mark.
broadcasting industry, that digital distribution of content may require
new solutions to adequately safeguard the interests of rights holders and
In 2009, the Finnish rules governing IP rights were subject to considerable
distributors of creative content. To address these questions, the Ministry
scrutiny. Th e ostensible aim of the diff erent reports and proposals has been
of Education appointed a committee in February 2008. Th e parties (rights
to update the Finnish IP rights system to respond to the demands of the
holders/distributors) and the members of the committee were unable to
global digital marketplace. It remains to be seen whether the proposed
agree on the legislative measures required. A new committee was appointed
amendments will lead to concrete legislative measures and, if so, what the
in 2009 to further analyse the complex issues in connection with digital
actual consequences will be for the diff erent industries.
distribution. Th e committee again failed to agree on the need for legislative
action to allow broadcasters to broadcast simultaneously through diff erent
technology platforms without the need to obtain permission. In the
Lauri Rechardt is a partner at Procope & Hornborg. He can be contacted at:
meantime, the industry’s contractual practice seems to have evolved and
lauri.rechardt@procope.fi
rendered the discussions generally moot.
Case law
Some noteworthy judgments in the fi eld of IP deserve a brief mention. In
Lauri Rechardt has broad experience in IPR-related matters, in
2008, the Court of Appeals held that administrators of a large Bit Torrent
particular, the licensing and enforcement of copyrights in finland
peer-to-peer fi le-sharing service were liable for copyright infringement.
and internationally. Rechardt has also extensive experience in
Th e parties were granted leave to appeal and the Supreme Court will
working with legal policy issues, and he has participated in the
announce its ruling in the near future. Th e operators of the service were
work of various international bodies, including WIPo, WCo, the
found liable as joint tortfeasors for the making available of protected works
Council of Europe and the European Commission, as an expert.
and sound recordings.
72 World Intellectual Property Review Digest 2009 www.worldipreview.com
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173