FINLAND
European Patent Offi ce expects to grant the fi rst UP in 2014. T e UPC will have exclusive jurisdiction to hear all civil cases related to UPs.
GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE MAY NOT BE VIOLATED NOR MAY PRACTICES THAT ARE OTHERWISE UNFAIR TO OTHER ENTREPRENEURS BE USED IN BUSINESS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE IS LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION.
In Finland, as well as in other European countries, the changes made to the patent system will off er a ‘third’ patent option. Notably, the UP will be complementary to the national patent and also to the so-called classical European patent that is currently available under the European Patent Convention and consists of a bundle of national patents.
Trademarks and unfair business practices
As a result of the IPR strategy, an extensive review of the Finnish Trademarks Act is currently underway. An expert group set up by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy published its report in September 2012, suggesting changes to the act so that it would be in line with Court of Justice of the European Union case law.
Recent case law
T e Supreme Administrative Court handed down its decisions in several trademark cases, for instance on the concepts of confusing similarity and distinctiveness. Smileys such as :) and :-) were, for example, considered not to be distinctive and they are to be freely accessible by all users. In another ruling, the court laid down that Finnish registration authorities are not legally bound by foreign decisions on registration of trademarks, but it acknowledged that the aim to harmonise international and European trademark legislation should be taken into account when considering conditions for trademark registration.
Passing off as unfair practice
In 2012 the Market Court, in line with Swedish case law, clarifi ed its view on passing off , ie, unlawful exploitation of another trader’s reputation or recognition. T e court found that passing off is against the general rule laid down in Section 1.1 of the Unfair Business Practices Act: “Good business
www.worldipreview.com World Intellectual Property Review e-Digest 2013 65
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