Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-10 of 36
Likelihood of confusion German Federal Court of Justice applies the “Thomson life” ratio on word-device marks
- Bird & Bird
- -
- Germany
- -
- April 26 2007
In the “Thomson life” decision (of 6 October 2005 C-12004) the ECJ held that there may be a likelihood of confusion where the contested mark is a composite consisting of an earlier registered trade mark together with the company name of another party where the earlier registered trade mark does not dominate the overall impression but still has an independent distinctive role within the composite mark
Bundesgerichtshof on Community trade marks: no infringement through unauthorised use as company name
- Bird & Bird
- -
- European Union, Germany
- -
- May 16 2008
In the “Céline” decision (judgment of 11 September 2007, Case C-1706), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirmed that third party use of a sign must occur as trade mark genuine use, i.e. use “in relation to goods andor services”, in order to fall under Art. 5 (1) of the Trade Mark Directive (Directive 89104EEC) or Art. 9 (1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR
Deutsche Börse cannot prevent descriptive use of the “DAX” trade mark
- Bird & Bird
- -
- Germany
- -
- May 16 2008
The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt (Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt) rendered a decision that is likely to have a significant impact on the index licensing business of Deutsche Börse AG for financial products relating to the “DAX” stock indices (judgment of 13 February 2007, 11 U 4006
German Federal Court of Justice decides that reprographic levies should not be raised on personal computers up to 2007
- Bird & Bird
- -
- Germany
- -
- February 4 2009
This case looks at a recent decision in the German Courts regarding whether reprographic levies should be raised on personal computers (“PCs”
Implementation of EU Enforcement Directive codification of rights to inspect infringing goods
- Bird & Bird
- -
- Germany
- -
- February 4 2009
With effect from 1 September 2008, the German legislator has with a delay of two years after the official deadline finally implemented Directive 200448EC of the European Council and of the Parliament of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights ("Enforcement Directive") into German law
Rapidshare held liable for user generated content that infringed copyright
- Bird & Bird
- -
- Germany
- -
- February 4 2009
In Germany it is an established principle that a host can be made liable to monitor user generated content that infringes copyright
Recent German court judgments question legitimacy of image searches
- Bird & Bird
- -
- Germany
- -
- February 4 2009
In five parallel proceedings against Google and ISPs using search engines of different providers, the Hamburg Regional Court decided that an image search facility infringes German copyright law (308 O 4206, 308 O 24807, 308 O 11506, 308 O 11306, 308 O 40406
Patent infringing offer without delivery capacity and literal patent infringement Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf decision in “Occlusion Means”
- Bird & Bird
- -
- Germany
- -
- May 13 2009
The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf recently confirmed German case law according to which an offer of a patent-infringing product constitutes patent infringement, regardless of the infringer’s intention or capacity to actually deliver the product
Distribution of copyright works
- Bird & Bird
- -
- European Union, Germany
- -
- May 29 2008
Cassina, an Italian furniture manufacturer, brought an infringement action against Peek & Cloppenburg (“P&C”), a German clothes retailer, for fitting out a customer rest area in one of its clothing shops with Le Corbusier chairs and displaying a chair in a shop window
FRAND licensing terms - German court refuses to grant an injunction to the owner of "essential" patents where the licence offered did not comply with antitrust law
- Bird & Bird
- -
- Germany
- -
- April 30 2007
In a landmark decision on 13 February 2007 in an action conducted by Bird & Bird's German office, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, Germany's leading court in patent infringement matters, rejected four claims of patent infringement relating to patents declared to the European Telecommunications Standardisation Institute ("ETSI") as being "Essential" patents for the implementation of the GSM telecommunication standard on the ground that the patentee did not offer the defendant a licence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms
Current Search
- Jurisdiction - Germany
- Workarea - Intellectual Property
- Firm Name - Bird & Bird
Suggested Facets
Author
- Anna Wolters (2)
- Christian Harmsen (1)
- Dr Jörg Witting (2)
- Fabian Niemann (7)
- Jörg-Alexander Paul (1)
- Katharine Stephens (1)
- Martin R.F. Senftleben (1)
- Peter Ward (1)