On 12 July 2016, the European Commission adopted a new arrangement for international exchanges of data between the United States and the European Union, namely, the “Privacy Shield”.
If you are going to let premises or a sales point in a market hall to a trader who could be infringing intellectual property rights, bear in mind that you could end up being sued by the rightholders.
In this decision, the CJEU held that Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC must be interpreted as precluding a scheme for fair compensation for private copying like the Spanish system, which is financed from the General State Budget.
In the judgment of 22 June 2016, C-280/15, the plaintiff –the holder of an EU trademark- filed a complaint for unlawful use of her trademark as a “hidden keyword” on an Internet website. The use in question had allegedly commenced prior to the public
In this decision, the CJEU tackled an international jurisdiction issue, since what was essentially under debate in the main proceedings was the applicability of Article 5(3) of Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters,
In its judgment in case C-207/15 P, published on 22 June 2016, the CJEU found in favour of Nissan Jidosha KK and against the EUIPO in ex parte proceedings relating to the possibility of renewing an EU trademark in two stages.
The case of the “Rubik’s cube”, which has reached the Court of Justice of the EU, relates to filing of applications for three-dimensional trademarks.
The question referred to the CJEU in the Austro-Mechana case (C-572/14) was whether a claim for payment of fair compensation for private copying, as per Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29, can be considered to be a matter relating to tort, delict
Elzaburu once again figures among the most prestigious law firms in Spain according to the ranking published annually by the economic and business daily Expansión.
One of the most striking features of the new Patent Act is the extension of the scope of what may be protected as a utility model.