The Court of Justice of the European Union released on Thursday, December 18, 2014, the judgment in the Case C-364/13.

A body unable to evolve into a human being is not a human embryo in the Directive regarding the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.Therefore, the uses of such a body for industrial or commercial purposes can, in principle, be patentable.
The Directive regarding the legal protection of biotechnological inventions provides that the uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes are not patentable.

In the Brüstle judgment from October 18, 2011, the Court held that the term ‘human embryo’ includes unfertilized human egg cells which by parthenogenesis, were stimulated to divide and grow as long as these egg cells are also, like the embryos created by the fertilization of an egg cell, likely to trigger the development of a human being.

OHIM says that these applications are unlikely to pass. Even though a large number of applications were filed all over the world, none of them has been filed at OHIM yet.

However, France’s IP office rejected 50 attempts to trademark the phrase “Je suis Charlie” due to ‘overriding public interest’.

Even though the number of patent applications grew last year more than the year before, the total number of granted patents was smaller in 2014 than in 2013.

 In 2014 were 64.600 patents granted compared to 66.700 in 2013.

CJEU said that an artist or his heir could claim royalties from the re-sale of their work. The Court also said that even if the seller should pay the re-sale, the cost could actually be borne by the buyer.

The EU’s Resale Right Directive specifies that member states should provide a re-sale right for the benefit of the creator of an original work of art, including the right to receive a royalty based on the re-sale price of the work.

An auction house named Christie’s France changed the terms by making the buyer liable to pay the royalty fee to the artist and not the re-seller. This fact created a dispute and SNA took attitude in the matter.

Based on all this facts, CJEU said that EU member states alone may determine who should be liable for the royalty payment.

Due to the case Hejduk vs. EnergieAgentur, CJEU ruled that an EU member state has the power to hear an infringement action regarding the copyright-infringing work accessible online in that country. The court is concerned about the posting of copyrighted images online without the consent of the copyright owner.

OHIM says that these applications are unlikely to pass. Even though a large number of application were filed all over the world, none of them has been filed at OHIM yet.

However, France’s IP office rejected 50 attempts to trademark the phrase “Je suis Charlie” due to “overriding public interest”.

The Madrid Union Assembly approved new changes to the Common Regulation during his 48^th session held in September in Geneva. These new changes came into effect on 1^st January 2015.

When an application will be processed, the international bureau will use new guidelines.

Some amendments include the changing of renewal fees for international registration, which means that the trademark owners can renew their protection, in a different juristriction, without paying a fee.

The High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled that, for the purposes of art. 3 paragraphs. (1) pt. 11 lit. a) of Law no. 344/2005, counterfeit goods is “any goods, including packaging, bearing without authorization an identical trademark or which does not differ in its essential aspects of a product or service trademark, legally registered for the same type of goods and, therefore, violate the rights of the holder of that trademark”.

The High Court held that by introducing into the country from the territory of a third country (outside the EEA), of goods bearing an identical sign to the international trademarks, held the exclusive right of use of the trademark owner, without his consent and, consequently, this is a violation of intellectual property rights.

The registration as a Community trade of the Rubik cube’s shape is valid. The graphical representation of the cube doesn’t contain a technical solution to prevent its protection as a trademark.

At the request of Seven Towns, a British company which manages especially intellectual property rights related to “Rubik Cube”, the Union Trademark Office (OHIM) registered in 1999 as a Community trademark the three-dimensional shape of this cube for the “three-dimensional puzzles” .

In 2006, Simba Toys, a German toy manufacturer requested the cancellation at OHIM for the three-dimensional trademark because it contains a technical solution consisting in its ability to rotate, and such a solution can only be protected under a patent and not as a trademark.

Since OHIM dismissed the petition, Simba Toys notified the Court with an action for annulment of the OHIM’s decision, but the Court dismissed the action brought by Simba Toys.