“Fabio Angelini will be the Moderator of the ECTA Workshop on the EU copyright reform which will be held on September 13, 2017 in Brussels”.
“Fabio Angelini will be the Moderator of the ECTA Workshop on the EU copyright reform which will be held on September 13, 2017 in Brussels”.
Harmonisation is to create softconnections between differences.Harmonisation is not suppression, but isinstead education and respect for thehistory behind each harmonised party.We have been living during a period oftime characterized by turbulences ofall types and with a number of harshissues and cases. One change in myview that has been special is thatnamely in the past, the offer providedby the opposing party was the trigger,whereas nowadays it seems to bemore of a demand; this is becausewe have a rational expectation toobtain whatever we believe weare obliged to. Overtime, this hasbecome more readily available thanksto the digital environment which isshared internationally; if we wish toobtain something that is not currentlyavailable, within a few hours we areable to get our hands on it, allowing theformal aspect of sales to be immaterialand extra fast.
With decision C-617/15, (Hummel Holdings A/S v Nike Inc., Nike Retail BV) the Court of Justice (CJ) has defined the concept of “establishment” under article 97 of EUTMR (now art. 125 Regulation 2017/1001).
According to article 98 (now art. 126) EUTMR, pan-European injunction can be granted if the Court seized has, according to art. 97 the “right” degree jurisdiction, i.e. defendant forum (or, if not domiciled in any of the EU Member States, in the member State where it has an establishment) plaintiff forum, Alicante’s forum. However, the concept of “establishment” is not defined by the EUTMR. Nor it is defined by Reg. 44/2001 (“Brussels”). So, what “establishment” means?
Can a scooter enjoy, contemporaneously, protection as a three-dimensional trademark (hereinafter 3D mark) and under copyright law? Apparently it can, at least according to the Court of Turin, which recently said so, with its decision no. 1900/2017 dating March 17, 2017.
The case was started when Piaggio, maker of the scooter Vespa, asserted rights arising out of its 3D mark protected by Italian mark registration 1556520 filed in August 2013: