Parlementaire stukken - Document parlementaires (BE/UE)  

Loi portant assentiment à l'Accord relatif à une juridiction unifiée du brevet, fait à Bruxelles le 19 février 2013, Moniteur Belge 9 septembre 2014.

Wet houdende instemming met de Overeenkomst betreffende het eengemaakt octrooigerecht, gedaan te Brussel op 19 februari 2013, Belgisch Staatsblad 9 september 2014.

Report on EU customs enforcement of intellectual property rights: Results at the EU border 2013, 31 juli 2014
Uit het persbericht. Uit het jaarrapport van de Commissie over de handhaving van intellectuele-eigendomsrechten door de douane blijkt dat de douanediensten in de Unie in 2013 bijna 36 miljoen stuks hebben tegengehouden waarvan werd vermoed dat ze inbreuk maakten op intellectuele-eigendomsrechten (IER). Hoewel dit aantal lager is dan de voorgaande jaren, vertegenwoordigden de onderschepte goederen toch nog altijd een waarde van 760 miljoen euro. Het vandaag verschenen rapport bevat eveneens statistieken over het soort, de herkomst en de vervoerswijze van de namaakgoederen die aan de EU-buitengrenzen zijn tegengehouden.

Kledingstukken (12 % van alle tegengehouden goederen) en medicijnen (10 %) behoren tot de belangrijkste categorieën van goederen die worden tegengehouden. In 2013 ging het in zo'n 70 % van de douane-interventies om post- en koerierszendingen en in 19 % van de tegengehouden postzendingen betrof het medicijnen. Zo'n 90 % van alle tegengehouden goederen is vernietigd of er werd een rechtszaak aangespannen om de inbreuk vast te stellen. China is nog altijd het belangrijkste land van herkomst van namaakgoederen: 66 % van alle tegengehouden goederen komt uit China en 13 % uit Hongkong. Andere landen domineren dan weer als het gaat om specifieke productcategorieën, zoals Turkije voor parfum en cosmetica en Egypte voor levensmiddelen.

Lees verder

KB betreffende de inwerkingtreding van bepaalde boeken van het Wetboek van economisch recht/ Arrêté royal relatif à l’entrée en vigueur de certains livres du Code de droit économique, Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur Belge, 29.04.2014, 35212-35213. (#page21)
Drie wetten die respectievelijk Boek VI., Boek XVII. en bijzondere regels over de vordering tot staking aan het Wetboek van Economisch Recht (WER) hebben toegevoegd, treden in werking op 31 mei 2014.

Lees verder

Persbericht/communiqué de presse: (zie anders IEFbe 795) The European Commission has today rendered commitments offered by Samsung Electronics (Samsung) legally binding under EU antitrust rules. According to these commitments, Samsung will not seek injunctions in Europe on the basis of its standard essential patents (SEPs) for smartphones and tablets against licensees who sign up to a specified licensing framework. Under this framework, any dispute over what are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (so-called "FRAND") terms for the SEPs in question will be determined by a court, or if both parties agree, by an arbitrator. The commitments therefore provide a "safe harbour" for all potential licensees of the relevant Samsung SEPs.

Indeed, potential licensees that sign up to the licensing framework will be protected against SEP-based injunctions by Samsung (see also MEMO/14/322). The Commission has also taken a prohibition decision in a separate investigation concerning Motorola (see IP/14/489).

Commission Vice President in charge of competition policy Joaquín Almunia said: "The protection of intellectual property and competition are both key drivers of innovation and growth. This is why it is essential that intellectual property is not misused to the detriment of healthy competition and, ultimately, of consumers. In this context, I welcome Samsung's commitment to resolve disputes on standard essential patents without having recourse to injunctions in a way that could harm competition. Together with today's decision in the Motorola case, the Commission's decision to accept Samsung's commitments provides clarity to the industry on what constitutes an appropriate framework to settle disputes over "FRAND" terms in line with EU antitrust rules. I would also encourage other industry players to consider establishing similar dispute resolution mechanisms."

The Commission’s competition concerns
SEPs are patents essential to implement a specific industry standard. It is not possible to manufacture products that comply with a certain standard without accessing these patents by obtaining a licence. This may give companies owning SEPs significant market power. As a result, standards bodies generally require their members to commit to license SEPs on FRAND terms. This commitment is designed to ensure effective access to a standard for all market players and to prevent "hold-up" by a single SEP holder. Such access on FRAND terms allows consumers to have a wider choice of interoperable products while ensuring that SEP holders are adequately remunerated for their intellectual property.

Seeking injunctions before courts is generally a legitimate remedy for patent holders in case of patent infringements. However, the seeking of an injunction based on SEPs may constitute an abuse of a dominant position if a SEP holder has given a voluntary commitment to license its SEPs on FRAND terms and where the company against which an injunction is sought is willing to enter into a licence agreement on such FRAND terms. Since injunctions generally involve a prohibition of the product infringing the patent being sold, seeking SEP-based injunctions against a willing licensee could risk excluding products from the market. Such a threat can therefore distort licensing negotiations and lead to anticompetitive licensing terms that the licensee of the SEP would not have accepted absent the seeking of the injunction. Such an anticompetitive outcome would be detrimental to innovation and could harm consumers.

Samsung owns SEPs related to various mobile telecommunications standards and has committed to license these SEPs on FRAND terms. In April 2011, Samsung started to seek injunctions against Apple on the basis of its SEPs. The Samsung SEPs in question related to the European Telecommunications Standardisation Institute's (ETSI) 3G UMTS standard, a key industry standard for mobile and wireless communications. In December 2012, the Commission informed Samsung of its preliminary view that it considered Apple a willing licensee on FRAND terms for Samsung's SEPs and that against this background, the seeking of injunctions against Apple based on Samsung's SEPs in several EU Member States may constitute an abuse of a dominant position in breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) (see IP/12/1448 and MEMO/12/1021).

Samsung’s commitments
To address the Commission's concerns, Samsung has for a period of five years committed not to seek any injunctions in the European Economic Area (EEA) on the basis of any of its SEPs, present and future, that relate to technologies implemented in smartphones and tablets against any company that agrees to a particular framework for licensing the relevant SEPs.

The licensing framework provides for:

• a negotiation period of up to 12 months; and
• if no agreement is reached, a third party determination of FRAND terms by a court if either party chooses, or by an arbitrator if both parties agree on this.

 

An independent monitoring trustee will advise the Commission in overseeing the proper implementation of the commitments.

Background
Article 9 of the EU's Antitrust Regulation (Regulation 1/2003) allows the Commission to conclude antitrust proceedings by making commitments offered by a company legally binding. Such a decision does not reach a conclusion on whether EU antitrust rules have been infringed but legally binds the company to respect the commitments. If the company breaches these commitments, the Commission can impose a fine of up to 10% of its annual worldwide turnover, without having to find an infringement of Articles 101 or 102 TFEU. A policy brief on commitment decisions under Article 9 is available here.

The Commission opened its investigation in January 2012 (see IP/12/89). In December 2012, the Commission issued a Statement of Objections setting out its preliminary competition concerns (see IP/12/1448). In September 2013, Samsung offered commitments in order to address the Commission's concerns. In October 2013, the Commission consulted interested parties on Samsung's commitments (see IP/13/971). On 3 February 2014, Samsung submitted the final version of the commitments which addressed the Commission's competition concerns.

The Commission recognises that other dispute resolution mechanisms than the specific ones to which Samsung commits may also be relied upon to settle FRAND disputes.

More information on this investigation is available on the Commission's competition website in the public case register under the case number 39939.

 

Via LegalWorld: De wetgever stemt 4 uitvoerings-KB’s van de Belgische octrooiwet af op de Europese octrooiverdragen en wijzigt 2 andere KB’s om het Belgische octrooisysteem te moderniseren. Europese vereisten De uitvoerings-KB’s van de Belgische octrooiwet van 28 maart 1984 werden aangepast om rekening te houden met de wijzigingen die de wet van 10 januari 2011 heeft aangebracht aan de Belgische octrooiwet. De wet van 10 januari 2011 bracht de Belgische octrooiwet in overeenstemming met het Europees verdrag inzake octrooirecht van 1 juni 2000 (het PLT-verdrag (Patent Law Treaty)) en het verdrag tot herziening van het Europees octrooiverdrag van 29 november 2000 (het EOV 2000). De wetgever hield bij de actualisatie van de Belgische octrooiwetgeving ook rekening met de uitvoeringsbesluiten van de Nederlandse rijksoctrooiwet. De Beneluxlanden hebben nl. afgesproken om een gemeenschappelijk softwaresysteem te hanteren voor het elektronisch beheer van de octrooiprocedure. Hierna volgt een overzicht van de belangrijkste wijzigingen.

Lees verder

Decreet van 17 januari 2014 tot wijziging van het decreet van 27 maart 2009 betreffende radio-omroep en televisie, houdende invoering van een stimuleringsregeling voor de audiovisuele sector, BS 12 februari 2014. - ontwerp
De Vlaamse Regering heeft in het regeerakkoord in die context een investeringsverplichting ingeschreven voor de distributeurs. Dit komt er op neer dat de distributeurs verplicht zullen worden om een deel van hun inkomsten door te storten aan de audiovisuele sector. Voor alle duidelijkheid: het gaat hier niet over het doorstorten van de auteursrechten, wat nu al wettelijk geregeld is. De modaliteiten hiervan zullen uitgewerkt worden in een besluit van de Vlaamse Regering. Dergelijk systeem bestaat al lang in de Franse Gemeenschap en heeft daar zijn nut bewezen.

De derde paragraaf van de ontworpen bepaling bepaalt het bedrag van de jaarlijkse fnanciële bijdrage aan de coproducties of van de bijdrage aan het Vlaams Audiovisueel Fonds. Deze bijdrage is principieel forfaitair (van 3 miljoen) bepaald, doch om rekening te houden met de draagkracht van de onderscheiden dienstenverdelers wordt hen de mogelijkheid geboden om hun bijdrage te beperken tot een bedrag per abonnee in het Nederlands taalgebied Deze bijdrage wordt jaarlijks geïndexeerd.

Op andere blogs:
LegalWorld

European Trademark and Design Network: Common Communication on the Common Practice on the Acceptability of Classification Terms v1.0, 20 February 2014
Merkenrecht. Na het BBIE [IEF 11697] verduidelijkt het EU Trademark and Design Network de zaak IP Translator [IEF 11454]. A set of three guidelines that describes criteria to determine the clarity and precision (or lack of such) of a term has been established: I. A description of goods and services is sufficiently clear and precise when its scope of protection can be understood from its natural and usual meaning.

II. If this scope of protection cannot be understood, sufficient clarity and precision may be achieved by identifying factors such as characteristics, purpose and / or identifiable market sector. Elements that could help to identify the market sector may be, but are not limited to, the following:
• consumers and/or sales channels
• skills and know-how to be used/produced
• technical capabilities to be used/produced.

III. A term may be part of the description of goods and services in a number of classes; it may be clear and precise in a particular class without further specification. For example Furniture (cl 20), Clothing (cl 25). If protection is sought for a specialised category of goods and services or a specialised market sector belonging to a different class, further specification of the term may be necessary. For example Furniture especially made for medical purposes (cl 10), Furniture especially made for laboratories (cl 9), Protective clothing (cl 9), Clothing especially for operating rooms (cl 10), Clothing for pets (cl 18). Tools such as TMclass are available to determine whether the particular category of goods and services needs this further specification or not.

Lees het persbericht

OHIM Knowledge Circles, CTM Revision and changes of practice: absolute grounds, Part B: Examination, Section 4: Absolute grounds for refusal, Alicante News december 2013.
Een bijdrage vanuit Knowledge Circle 'Absolute Grounds', OHIM.
The Knowledge Circle Absolute Grounds has revised part of the Guidelines on Article 7. In particular, the work focused on letters (a) to (e) of this provision. The Office’s practice has been revised in respect of some important topics, for example:

1. Slogans 2. Single letters 3. Abbreviations and acronyms 4. Names of colours

5. Shapes giving substantial value 6. Subject matter and titles of books 7. Figurative elements

1. Slogans The part of the Guidelines dealing with slogans has been revised, in particular as a consequence of a decision by the Court. In case C-398/08P ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’ (innovation through technique [red. IEF 8545]), the CJ set out that slogans are objectionable if they are only perceived as a mere promotional formula. However, slogans are distinctive if, apart from their promotional function, they are perceived as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods. This doctrine has been implemented into the Guidelines. In addition, some guidance is provided as regards the situations in which a slogan can be distinctive, for example when it has various meanings, constitutes a play on words or a conceptual surprise, or involves a mental effort.

2. Single letters Trade marks consisting of a single letter in standard characters with no graphic modifications is another topic which has been revised as a consequence of a Court’s decision. In case C-265/09P ‘(α)’ [red. IEF 9087], the CoJ ruled that those signs must be assessed in the context of an examination, based on the facts, focusing on the goods or services concerned. Moreover, it also stated that the ‘distinctiveness test’ to be applied to these signs is not different from that of other signs. In that respect, the Guidelines explain that the examination of these signs must be based on the specific factual circumstances of the case. It is therefore not possible to rely on general assumptions, such as that consumers will not usually perceive them as distinctive signs. On the contrary, it is now for the Office to establish, on the basis of the case at issue, why the trade mark is not distinctive.

3. Abbreviations and acronyms This type of trade mark can usually be grouped into two cases. Some of them consist of an acronym (e.g. ‘TDI’, as in case T-16/02 ). The Guidelines state that abbreviations of descriptive terms are in themselves descriptive if they are or could be used in that way, and the relevant public recognises them as being identical to the full descriptive meaning. Some other trade marks consist of a descriptive expression conjoined with its acronym (e.g., ‘Multi Markets Fund MMF’, as in case C-90/11 [IEF 11047]). Unlike under previous practice of the Office (which usually tended to accept them), these signs should be now objected to as descriptive because the acronym and word combination together are intended to clarify each other and to draw attention to the fact that they are linked.

4. Names of colours As regards CTMs which consist of the name of a colour, in the past the Office usually objected to these only when the sign applied for sought protection for paints or similar colourant products. Under the new Guidelines, a sign consisting exclusively of the name of a colour must be objected to under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) when the application claims any goods for which the colour can reasonably be perceived by the public as a description of one of its characteristics. For example, BLUE in relation to cheese or GREEN in respect of tea.

5. Shapes giving substantial value Even though it is not as frequently raised as others, the Guidelines on the ground for refusal foreseen in Article 7(1)(e)(iii) has also been subject to revision. Following the Court’s judgment in case T-508/08 (‘loudspeaker’), the Guidelines underline that this ground for refusal will mostly apply to those goods where the shape of the object concerned is the main, although not necessarily exclusive, factor that determines the decision to buy it. For example, objects of art and items such as jewellery, vases and other objects that are bought primarily because of the aesthetic value associated with their shape.

6. Subject matter and titles of books Part of the new Guidelines is dedicated to a related issue: trade marks which consist of the title of a book and those which are descriptive of the ‘subject matter’ of the goods or services.

Certain stories (or their titles) have become so well known that they have ‘entered into the language’ and are incapable of being ascribed any meaning other than that of a particular story. The Guidelines now provide specific instructions on this issue: trade marks consisting solely of a famous story or book title are non-distinctive under Article 7(1)(b) in relation to goods and services which could have that story as their subject matter. This would be the case of ‘Cinderella’ for products like books or films.

On the other hand, guidance is also given as regards those signs which are descriptive under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the subject matter or content of the goods or services, in particular in respect of the scope of the objection (i.e. the goods and services concerned and the way in which they are described, for example whether or not they refer to a specific subject matter).

7. Figurative elements Another important issue dealt with in the new Guidelines refers to those trade marks which contain non-distinctive figurative elements. Part of this issue, moreover, is also the object of a Convergence Programme with the IP National Offices. The new Guidelines focus on providing instructions on how to assess the distinctive role, if any, that these elements may have within the overall assessment of the trade mark.

Knowledge Circle 'Absolute Grounds',

Wet van 15 december 2013 houdende invoeging van Boek XII, ‘Recht van de elektronische economie’, in het Wetboek van economisch recht, en houdende invoeging van de definities eigen aan Boek XII en van de rechtshandhavingsbepalingen eigen aan Boek XII, in de Boeken I en XV van het Wetboek van economisch recht, BS 14 januari 2014.

Wet van 26 december 2013 houdende invoeging van artikel XII.5 in het Boek XII, Recht van de elektronische economie' van het Wetboek van economisch recht, BS 14 januari 2014.

Vorig jaar is de wetgever gestart met het bundelen van de economische regelgeving in één Wetboek van economisch recht. Omdat het niet om een loutere codificatie gaat, verloopt deze operatie in verschillende fasen. Uiteindelijk zal het nieuwe wetboek bestaan uit 17 delen. Nu is boek XII “Recht van de elektronische economie” aan de beurt. Een wet van 15 december 2013 voegt dit nieuw boek in. En tegelijk worden de definities en de rechtshandhavingsbepalingen die eigen zijn aan Boek XII ingevoegd in de Boeken I en XV van het Wetboek van economisch recht. Het gaat om specifieke definities, bevoegdheden en strafrechtelijke sancties.

Lees het artikel van Steven Bellemans op LegalWorld/Jura.

Voorontwerp van wet houdende de invoeging van een Boek XI, “Intellectuele Eigendom” in het Wetboek van economisch recht en invoeging van specifieke bepalingen eigen aan Boek XI in de Boeken I, XV en XVII van hetzelfde Wetboek, datum 28 juni 2013. en de Memorie van Toelichting bij het bovenvermelde voorontwerp, datum 28 juni 2013.

Ingezonden door Tom Heremans, CMS DB.
KONINKRIJK BELGIË- FEDERALE OVERHEIDSDIENST ECONOMIE, K.M.O., MIDDENSTAND EN ENERGIE
Voorontwerp van wet houdende de invoeging van een Boek XI, “Intellectuele Eigendom” in het Wetboek van economisch recht en invoeging van specifieke bepalingen eigen aan Boek XI in de Boeken I, XV en XVII van hetzelfde Wetboek.
ALBERT II, Koning der Belgen,
Aan allen die nu zijn en hierna wezen zullen,
Onze Groet.

Klik hier, cliquez ici