Welcome to the new edition of the KPMG Intellectual Property newsletter on developments in the world of copyright, patents, trademarks, designs, domains and other Intellectual Property rights (“IPRs”).
Once again, we have collected a variety of interesting articles from all over the world. KPMG firms are proud of their global network of IP lawyers, enabling KPMG professionals to offer an international service to clients in this area.
A number of important laws and decisions have been made or implemented in recent months. Negotiators from different EU institutions agreed upon new rules in the Digital Markets Act (DMA). We analyze the implications for big tech companies.
A major problem in many countries, affecting not only the film and music industries but also many other sectors of the economy, is product piracy. In this edition, we take a closer look on the blocking of dynamic pirate websites in Spain and some rulings of the European Court of Justice on copyright and related rights.
After long discussions and various court proceedings, the Unified Patent Court is slowly taking shape. We report on the outcome of the inaugural meeting of the Unified Patent Court’s Administrative Committee.
Judgements and legislative initiatives from Belgium, Argentina, Romania and Vietnam as well as the EU complete the picture.
Check out the contribution from Belgium regarding a ruling by the Court of Appeal of Ghent on a case concerning allegedly confusing and parasitic copy of packaging.
Discover the complete newsletter below.
TM registration of packaging: obligation to register reaffirmed
On 14 March 2022, the Court of Appeal of Ghent ruled on a case concerning allegedly confusing and parasitic copy of packaging. In this case, the Court confirmed the principle of the obligation to register pursuant to art. 2.19 BCIP and stated that the claimants could not seek trademark protection for a sign which they did not register as a trademark, ruling the claim inadmissible.
The facts underlying the case were as follows: A French manufacturer of a nasal spray containing seawater -together with the distributor of the product -brought an action against a Belgian cooperative wholesaler and its supplier. This Belgian wholesaler launched a nasal spray in 2019 which also contained seawater. In its claim, the French manufacturer argued that the packaging of the nasal spray of the Belgian wholesaler is misleading and a parasitic copy of the packaging of the nasal spray of the French manufacturer. They argued, inter alia, that the packaging of the nasal spray of the Belgian wholesaler is visually very similar to that of the French manufacturer.
