Whose trade mark rights? What the Microsoft case means for trade mark owners

Legal context. The article considers the influence of the commissionruling in the Microsoft case, forcing Microsoft to use its WINDOWS-trademark for an ‘unbundled’ version of the program inthe light of the trade mark owner's properties rights. The scopeof these rights is determined by the function of the trade markand the rights that the trade mark laws confer to the ownerin case of infringement. Key points. Trade marks are protected as property rights undercommunity law. They are the embodiment of past investments andtransform the reputation of the owner into a bankable asset.Consumers rely on trade mark owners' control over quality. Thisis mirrored by the rights of the trade mark owner to stop interferencewith quality and image, in particular in the context of resaleof altered products. Any interference that would be considereda trade mark infringement if committed by a private party shouldbe considered an interference with the protected property rightif caused by a government agency. This interference is not justifiedby the public interest because trade mark rights also embodyimportant public interests. Practical significance. If the analysis proposed in the articleis followed, intellectual property rights have to be given greaterweight in shaping antitrust remedies.     

The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act of 1998: is it still afloat?

Legal context. The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (‘VHDPA’or ‘Act’) is a unique form of industrial designprotection under US law, part of the Digital Millennium CopyrightAct 1998. Congress provided this sui generis form of protectionin response to the Supreme Court's decision in Bonito Boatsv Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. This statute has been underutilizeddue to the difficulty in proving infringement, as unintendedconsequences were caused by the way ‘hull’ was originallydefined under the Act. A bill is pending in Congress that addresseshow a ‘hull’ is defined, eliminating any inclusionof ‘deck’ features, when passed, registrants shouldbe able to pursue infringers with greater success. Key points. The recreational boat manufacturing industry hasbeen plagued by low-cost boat makers who think nothing of takinga competitor's boat hull design, and using it as a ‘plug’to make a casting for their own unauthorized manufacturing use,a counterfeiting technique known in the trade as ‘splashing’a hull. In the eight years since enactment, the boating industryhas generally overlooked this form of intellectual propertyprotection due to the difficulty in proving infringement—thatis likely to change soon. Practical significance. The Act includes the right to excludeothers from making, having made, importing, offering for sale,or using in any trade, any boat hull embodying the protectedhull design. The Act provides compensatory recovery for damagesas well as injunctive relief. The newly revised Act has thepotential to provide a low-cost and effective form of intellectualproperty protection for recreational boat manufacturers whobuild hulls from moulded fibreglass or similar materials.     

Kicking butt? Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Brandsharing) Regulations 2004

Legal context. This article looks at the provisions of The TobaccoAdvertising and Promotion (Brandsharing) Regulations 2004 implementingEU Directive 2003/33 to approximate the laws of EU Member Statesrelating to indirect advertising and sponsorship of tobaccoproducts through brandsharing. Key points. The Directive is the latest in a series of measuresto control direct and indirect tobacco advertising. Its provisionsand those of the implementing Regulations are widely drawn toprevent use of tobacco trade marks and other features indicatingthe origin of goods or services for non-tobacco products andvice versa if the effect of such use results in brandsharing.Purpose or intended effect is irrelevant—there is no requirementfor ‘mens rea’. There are defences however but absentthese, liability is assessed on the criminal rather than thecivil standard. The Directive also impacts on the procedureof the Patent Office and its assessment of whether trade markscan be accepted for registration. Practical significance. There are practical consequences tooas regards brand clearance and the extent to which identicaland similar marks for tobacco/non-tobacco goods need to be includedin clearance searches.     

Human rights and trade mark rights

Legal context. For some time the UK Trade Marks Registry hasrefused to register trade marks which consists of the name ofa well-known individual. This article examines whether the practiceis permissible, not in the terms of intellectual property lawbut whether it is in contravention of the applicant's humanrights. Key points. Looking at the application of the Human Rights Actin the United Kingdom, the article asks how it could apply toan intellectual property case, concluding that the Trade MarkRegistry is clearly a ‘public authority’ and thatthere are a number of ways in which current practice in respectof well-known individuals could be said to infringe their humanrights. Practical significance. It remains to be seen what the Registry'sresponse will be to such arguments and whether it might in thefuture be possible to obtain protection for the name of a celebrity.     

Patent auctions: business and investment strategy in IP commercialization

Legal context. This article concerns patent sale and licensing,asset deals connected with M&A and intangible asset transactions. Key points. Patent owners might find patent auctions a fastway to sell or license their patents. There is a high probabilitythat bidders will purchase or license low- or no- value patentsbecause patent auctions set a very tight time frame for bidders’due diligence. The nature of the patent right creates a bigimbalance in terms of knowledge between owner of the patentand the purchaser or licensee; the latter party can only minimizethe risk of purchasing or licensing a "zero" or low value patentby receiving sufficient time to investigate the patents. IPauctions may however be a better and safer means of purchasingor licensing domain names or trade marks, due to their legalnature. Practical significance. Many companies might believe that patentauction is a swift and effective way to find a purchaser ora licensee for their IP rights. Even so, it is imperative thatthe bidders themselves conduct a proper due diligence of thepatents offered, corresponding to their needs and to their assessmentof their true financial and business value.     

Comparative advertising and celebrity photographs--fair dealing under the CDPA 1988

Legal context. Legal context. This article reviews the conceptof ‘fair dealing’ under Copyright Designs and PatentsAct 1988, section 30. It does so in the context of to recentcases concerning the fair dealing defence, IPC Media Ltd v NewsGroup Newspapers Ltd and Fraser Woodward Ltd v BBC are considered. Key points. The traditional approach of courts to ‘fairdealing’ is based upon a number of ‘factors’considered relevant in determining whether a use of a copyrightwork is fair. The article argues that there are a number ofproblems with this approach. In particular, it claims that theapproach is unsystematic and rests upon a number of questionableassumptions. It suggests that the decision of Hart J in IPCMedia Ltd demonstrates these problems to a very significantdegree. In contrast, that of Mann J in Fraser Woodward Ltd provideswelcome guidance on the application of the concept of fairnessin certain cases. Practical significance. The criticisms made in this articlehighlight a number of discrepancies in the existing case lawand suggest a need for closer consideration and greater disciplinein decision-making in this area.     

Future Developments

July 2006 UK FSA Consultation Paper ‘Implementing MiFID for firmsand markets’ to be published. Consultation period to closein October 2006. 6 July: Deadline for responses to Committee of European BankingSupervisors’ (CEBS) consultation CP02 on its standardsfor outsourcing of     

Copyright ownership in university students' academic works

Legal context. The impact of human rights on intellectual property(‘IP’), particularly in the light of the Human RightsAct 1998 and growing criticism of IP by civil society. Key points. There can be a greater legal, as well as political,role for human rights in the development of IP. The place ofhuman rights in IP litigation is established: see decisionsin Levi v Tesco, Ashdown v Telegraph and ITP v Coflexip. However,the impact of human rights has been limited to extreme peripheralcases, without challenging the central priority accorded tothe interests of IP owners. After considering practical applicationsin ‘non commercial’, ‘hybrid’, and ‘commercial’fields, this article argues for a more pervasive and centralrole for human rights, by greater reference to the Human RightsAct 1998, the EU Charter, international human rights instruments,TRIPS and decisions of other jurisdictions. This should enablea more balanced outcome to be reached in many, but not all,cases. Practical significance. IP owners, those challenging IP rights,and those advising them should all consider greater use of humanrights in IP litigation—not just in exceptional cases.Those resisting infringement may increase their prospect ofsuccess; those arguing for infringement will be better placedto counter arguments which may be raised. However, revisionof national, regional and international IP legislation wouldbe required to address all perceived social difficulties withIP.     

Best execution and competition between trading venues MiFID's likely impact

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points

• Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament andof the Council on markets in financial instruments (‘MiFID’)enhances investor protection in Europe by harmonizing the rulesof conduct applicable to investment services providers, includingbest execution requirements.
• Under MiFID, Member States mustallow internalization of orders and, therefore, eliminate the‘concentration’ provisions requiring transactionsin equity securities to be executed by intermediaries on a regulatedmarket. This article argues that MiFID's best execution provisionsmay represent a compromise between those Member States that,on one hand, having concentration rules in place, intended toprotect the incumbent exchanges from the consequences of theirrepeal and those, on the other, that intended to fully exploitthe opportunities of financial liberalization in Europe.
• Afterexamining MiFID's broad definition of best execution, the articleconsiders several provisions that limit the Directive's flexibility.These provisions tend to favour incumbent exchanges, which offerthe best . . . [Full Text of this Article]

 

Exclusion payments in patent settlements: a legal and economic perspective

Legal context. The application of antitrust law to assess settlementsof patent litigation raises difficult issues concerning theappropriate balance of patent law and competition policy. Recentprivate and public invocations of US antitrust law to challengesettlement agreements covering pharmaceutical patents have broughtthese issues to the forefront. The agreements share the commonfeature of an ‘exclusion payment’ from a brand-namedrug manufacturer (the patentee) to a generic drug manufacturer(the accused infringer) in exchange for a promise by the genericcompany to refrain from marketing its product for some time.US federal courts that have examined these agreements have variedin their approach and conclusions regarding the appropriateantitrust analysis to be applied to these settlements. Key points. This article argues that informed antitrust analysisof such agreements must take due note of the ‘probabilistic’nature of patent property rights. Practical significance. The article concludes that exclusionpayments fall outside the scope of a patent's exclusionary scopeand thus are subject to antitrust scrutiny. It demonstratesthat barring anticompetitive exclusion payments in settlementnegotiation prevents collusive bargains that harm consumer welfarewithout discouraging efficient settlements.     

Gaining confidence in the law of confidence

Legal context. The recent case of EPI v Symphony has left theUK law of confidentiality in an uncertain state: the extentto which recipients of confidential information may be permittedto ‘use’ mixtures of such information with publiclyavailable material remains unclear. The Court of Appeal in EPIfelt that it was hard to reconcile the principle that any claimin confidence must fail if the material in question is in thepublic domain with the ‘springboard’ doctrine; butis the distinction illusory? Key points. Issues raised in this case include considerationof what precisely is ‘use’ of confidential information,when mixed with public information, and whether a confider shoulddo more than rely on confidentiality obligations to protectthe fruits of his/her disclosures. This article asks how confidentialityobligations may be aligned with the control of statutory intellectualproperty rights. It considers whether the Court of Appeal inMarkem v Zipher has confused the issue and speculates as tohow far the general law of contract can assist the confider. Practical significance. Finally, this article discusses whichlegal tools will best assist the confider seeking to protectits intellectual property.     

The 'final' privacy frontier? Regulating trans-border data flows

This article examines the threat to privacy posed by the transferof personal information from one jurisdiction to another. Despiteinternational trends towards greater protection of personalinformation, significant challenges to personal privacy arisein this context. These include the use of outsourcing by businesses,the encroachment of security laws and the potential ‘spill-over’of technologies developed for combating terrorism into the privatesector. Also significant are technologies enabling the ‘profiling’of individuals and ‘data mining’ across borders.Against this backdrop, the article considers existing jurisdictionalresponses towards regulating personal information flows acrossborders. It considers various actual or proposed solutions including‘safe-harbours’, contractual mechanisms and extra-territorialapplications. The article concludes that many of the existingapproaches to regulating trans-border information flows areto some extent deficient and suggests the need for a new ‘fourthgeneration’ set of data protection protocols. In formulatingthe latter, analogies are drawn from other relevant areas ofthe law in order to furnish creative solutions to the problem.     

Offshore IT Outsourcing and the 8th Data Protection Principle - legal and regulatory requirements - with reference to Financial Services

In the global sourcing world, particularly in financial services,offshore outsourcing and associated data transfers are commonplaceand increasing, searching out lower cost third countries, whichmay have even fewer data protections. In such an environment,the1998 Data Protection Act’s 8^th Principle and associated7^th Principle security provisions become critical protectionsfor UK data subjects. Yet the few statistics that exist indicate that unrestrictedtransfers appear to occur from several EEA countries. Furthercriticisms are that the UK 1998 Act does not fully align withthe EEA Directive, the Schedule 4 exceptions are overly wide,the country assessment process can be ignored with the InformationCommissioner’s ‘blessing’ and his powers andresources are limited. Financial Services may be a contrasting exception, where theindustry regulator, the FSA, ‘incidentally’ enforcesmany of the data protection requirements of overseas data transfers,has significant direct enforcement powers and a model ADR approachthrough the Financial Ombudsman. Although the UK banking lawand regulation meets many privacy requirements, it falls shortof the full data protection requirements, clearly illustratingthe value that data protection legislation brings. The alternative self regulatory approach exemplified by theUS Safe Harbor illustrates the weaknesses of pure self regulation,recognized by the US financial services which are moving towardscentralized data privacy supervision with the Gramm-Leach-BlileyAct, reinforcing the worldwide trend towards a more EEA-stylesupervised personal data protection world. In short, seven years after the 1998 Act was passed, we areready for an appropriate mid-course correction, with the 8thPrinciple (& 7^th Principle) needed more than ever in thegrowing outsourced world.     

Legal reflections on the Google Print Library Project

Legal context. IP lawyers need a better understanding of theimplications of new technology when advising their clients onlegal strategies for appropriating rents from the exploitationof intellectual property rights in the digital environment.Conversely, clients seeking to ascertain the permissible limitsfor accessing material on the Internet must be made aware ofthe critical distinction between contractual and copyright issues. Key points. Licensing of copyright will continue to be an efficientinstrument for resolving issues relating to compensation andboundaries for permissible use. A sound understanding of thedigital environment will ensure that potential problems associatedwith the scope of the restricted acts under the Copyright, Designsand Patents Act 1988 can be avoided. Lawyers should also beaware of the possible policy developments relating to the exploitationof digital content following the deliberations in the GowersReview. Lawyers should also re-examine the submissions in boththe Grokster and Perfect 10 cases, recognizing the circumstanceswhen copyright arguments raised in other jurisdictions may beimported into the United Kingdom. Practical significance. The absence of any UK legal precedentwith regard to the copyright issues arising from the disputebetween search engine providers and copyright owners providesno excuse for failing to consider how contractual instrumentsmay efficiently resolve issues relating to the appropriationof rents from intellectual property rights. The absence of a‘fair dealing’ exception does not inevitably meanthat, should a similar dispute as that in Google v The Author'sGuild arise in the United Kingdom, a copyright infringementwill have taken place.     

Is there still a hole in this bucket? Confusion and misrepresentation in passing off

Legal context. Passing off is an evolving tort. There may beopportunities to expand the scope of the tort to capture activitiesthat have not previously amounted to passing off. Key points. In Arsenal v Reed, Aldous LJ suggested that thetime has come to abandon the label "passing off" and recognisea tort of "unfair competition". The implication is that certainactivities that would not previously have been censured by thecourts might now constitute passing off. This raises the questionof what circumstances might justify giving claimants greaterrights of action. This article explores the possibility of justifyinga claim in passing off where the misrepresentation does notcause confusion, and dilution of the claimant's trade mark isthe only damage caused. Practical significance. There is no doubt that passing off willevolve still further. The English judiciary is perhaps now moreconscious of the flexibility of passing off than at any timein the recent past. Ambitious – even adventurous –claims may have a chance of success.