NEWS: CJEU LATEST
CJEU says copyright protection can include online sports broadcasts Te CJEU added that this may only be
done provided that any extension “does not undermine the protection of copyright”. Te case, C More Entertainment v Sandberg,
centres on a dispute between online broadcaster C More Entertainment, which owns the rights to several live broadcasts of hockey matches, and a man called Linus Sandberg. Sandberg ran a site that provided hyperlinks
to C More Entertainment’s live broadcasts. Te links enabled users to circumvent a paywall set up by C More Entertainment, which charged €9.70 ($10) to view a live broadcast of a hockey match on its website. C More Entertainment contacted Sandberg in 2007 requesting that the links be removed, and filed a copyright infringement lawsuit aſter Sandberg did not comply. Te District Court of Hudiksvall found
Sandberg guilty of copyright infringement in 2010, a ruling which Sandberg appealed against. But in June 2011, the Court of Appeal
Te Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that EU member states can extend copyright protection to live
digital
sports broadcasts. In its ruling, issued on March 26, the CJEU
answered a question referred to it by the Supreme Court of Sweden on whether it can widen the scope of copyright protection to such broadcasts. Te ability to do this is not covered by the EU Directive 2001/29, which deals with “certain
aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society”. Te CJEU said that EU legislation has
harmonised copyright and related rights “only in part”. In response to the referred question, the
court said national legislation should not be prevented from including sports broadcasting organisations’ rights “as acts of communication to the public”.
of Nedre Norrland ruled that: “No part of the commentators’, cameraman’s or picture producers’ work on the broadcasts of the ice hockey matches ... reached the level of copyright protection.” Te court added: “C More Entertainment
was not the holder of copyright, but of related rights, which had been infringed.” C More Entertainment appealed against the
decision and it later went to the Supreme Court of Sweden. Te Supreme Court opted to stay the proceedings until the CJEU ruled on its query. Te case now returns to the Supreme Court to make its final decision.
AG ruling on trademark reputation may bring good news for Unilever
An Advocate General (AG) at Europe’s highest court has said that a right owner may be able to rely on a Community trademark’s (CTM) reputation in one EU member state even when enforcing it in another. In an opinion issued on March 24, Nils Wahl
at the CJEU was ruling on a dispute between multinational Unilever and Hungary-based Iron & Smith. Unilever had opposed an application by Iron
& Smith at the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (HIPO) to register a colour trademark featuring the words ‘be impulsive’. Unilever claimed the prospective mark could
cause confusion with its deodorant brand Impulse, for which it holds a CTM. Te HIPO found that Unilever had sold large
quantities of the brand and publicised it in the UK and Italy. Despite these findings not relating to Hungary,
the HIPO said the reputation of the CTM had been proved in a substantial part of the EU and consequently refused the application. Iron & Smith appealed against the decision at
the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest Municipal Court), seeking an annulment of the decision. Te court then referred the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. Te court asked the CJEU if it is sufficient for a
right owner to show that its CTM has a reputation in one member state when it is enforcing it in another member state. In his opinion, AG Wahl said: “It may— depending on the specific mark which is
10 World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2015 described as enjoying a reputation and,
accordingly, on the public concerned—be sufficient that a CTM enjoys a reputation in one member state, which does not need to be the state in which that provision is relied upon.” Wahl added that where the earlier CTM does
not enjoy a reputation in the member state, it is necessary to show that a “commercially pertinent proportion” of the relevant public in that member state will make a link with the earlier trademark. Te AG’s opinion provides guidance to the
CJEU and the court is not obliged to follow its opinion, although it is thought to do so in around 80% of cases. Unilever did not respond to a request for
comment. Iron & Smith could not be reached for comment.
www.worldipreview.com
Monkey Business Images /
Shutterstock.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