Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!

Marcel Pemsel discussed the deceptiveness of a trade mark through the The French Cour de Cassation’s referral to the CJEU (Fauré Le Page, case C-412/24). Maison Fauré Le Page, a French-based company in Paris since 1716, transferred to its sole shareholder, the company Saillard, in 1992. After applying for a trade mark called ‘Fauré Le Page’ in 1989, Saillard sold this trade mark to Fauré Le Page Paris in 2009. In 2011, Fauré Le Page Paris filed applications for the French trade marks that were containing the words ‘Fauré Le Page Paris 1717’. The Court of Appeal of Paris ruled that the Paris 1717 Trade Marks were invalid, considering the past transfers and how misleading they were. Overall, after Fauré Le Page Paris appealed to the Cour de Cassation where it referred the related questions on Art. 3(1)(g) TMD2 to the CJEU.

Alessandro Cerri analysed a recent decision ([2024] EWHC 1727 (IPEC)) on exhaustion of trade marks. AGA Rangemaster Group Limited (AGA) objected to the sales and marketing activities of a company, which sold second-hand AGA cookers retrofitted with an electronic control system. AGA did not accept the sales of the cookers changed by the UKIG since they were no longer counted as the original AGA Cookers which led to the infringement of AGA`s trade mark rights. Furthermore, AGA also discussed a possible copyright infringement in its design. After a meticulous analysis for both sides, the Court’s ruling was in the favor of AGA`s trade mark. On the copyright side, AGA was granted permission to appeal.

Marcel Pemsel reported on the new CJEU reform which was made to reduce the workload of the Court of Justice of the EU and to increase transparency of the judicial process. The imported changes include the shift of competencies for preliminary rulings, publication of submissions in preliminary ruling proceedings, publication of submissions in preliminary ruling proceedings, extension of mechanism of ‘pre-approval’ of appeals to the CJEU, submission of statements by EU bodies, broadcasting of hearings and last but not least deletion of Art. 191 RoP GC. Even though all these new regulations seek to reduce the workload, it might have been better to consider increasing the number of judges for a more effective solution.

Copyright

Eleonora Rosati discussed the reunion of Oasis through an IP analysis especially focused on copyright. Through this post you can have a better understanding of reproduction under copyright and related rights, quotation and pastiche, artists’ contracts and internet piracy as well as the Creation Records case.

Artificial Intelligence

Antonios Baris discussed the decision in Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP and Ors. concerning the unauthorized use and cloning of Indian artist Arijit Singh’s voice by multiple defendants. Arijit Singh, a globally recognized award-winning Bollywood playback singer and composer wanted to protect his publicity and personality rights, after the misuse of AI technology to create deepfake recordings of his voice, misleading events that falsely implied his endorsement, and the registration of domain names bearing his name. The court ruled in favour of Singh and said that publicity and personality rights are legally recognized in India and that unauthorized use of one’s own personal attributes may breach such rights.

Geographical Indications

Anastasiia Kyrylenko reported on the Laguiole case which was covered before here, here, here and here. The saga was updated with the Appeal Court of Aix-en-Provence’s ruling on the cancellation of the French geographical indication (GI) called “Couteau Laguiole” (Laguiole knife) because the consumers would be confused as to the knives’ geographical origin.