Italian manufacturer of cleaning products Dasty sells degreaser Dasty through retail chain Wibra. In the Netherlands, Dasty discovered imitations that were virtually indistinguishable from its own products: Dasti. Investigations showed that the counterfeit products originated from Dasty’s former distributor, producer and licensee in Turkey.
Read MoreIn GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc and Britt Geertruida Dekker (C-160/15, September 8, 2016) the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has decided on whether posting a hyperlink to illegal content constitutes a “communication to the public” within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29.
Read MoreThe American company WhatsApp Inc. lost a lawsuit on 22 November 2016 that it had filed against the Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) after being sanctioned. According to the DPA, WhatsApp had violated the Dutch Personal Data Protection Act as it was found to process personal data of Dutch customers using Dutch smartphones (and not just transferring) while no ‘representative’ had been appointed in the Netherlands.
Read MoreTobias McFadden runs a business in lighting and sound systems. As an extra service McFadden offers a wifi-network free of charge and without password protection. Sony Music discovered that someone used this wifi-connection to upload a musical work without their permission and sends a letter.
Read MoreSnack manufacturer De Vries has marketed the snack MEXICANO since 1984 (right). Both the name and the shape are registered as a Benelux mark for snacks. Private label supplier Bakx makes and sells a similar snack in the Benelux, the Brasero.
Read MoreThe great fun of the Internet is that it is so easy to link to another website. Any restriction of that fun may violate fundamental rights such as the freedom of expression and information. Yet can one place a hyperlink to a website that contains copyright protected content – a film, a photo, a text?
Read MoreIn July 2016, our firm was bolstered by Stephanie Reinders Folmer joining us as a legal assistant. She provides support to the lawyers of Hoogenraad & Haak for all aspects of the practice.
Read MoreOwners of trademarks and other IP rights may force the tenant of a market hall to take measures which contribute to avoiding new IP infringements from taking place, after a first infringement.
Read MoreThe former Mercedes-Benz dealer Együd did not violate trademark rights, even though its name and the Mercedes brand were shown together in an online advertisement which suggested a (no longer existing) commercial relationship between Együd and Mercedes Benz.
Read MorePMP has produced the two-button wingback chair, Janis (shown on the left), since 2013. Competitor Easysofa brought a strikingly similar wingback chair onto the market: the Beto, in various models with one, two, or four buttons. PMP requested a preliminary injunction on the basis of copyright and unregistered Community Design Law. However, according to Easysofa, PMP did not come up with (the design) for the Janis themselves (either).
Read MoreThe European Commission has drafted an outline of an “adequacy decision” that must feature an EU-US Privacy Shield as a substitute for the nullified Safe Harbour decision. The national Privacy Authorities, united into the Article 29 workgroup “WP29”, are critical of the draft decision by the European Commission.
Read MoreUp to the present time, uncertainty remained in the Dutch IP-world about who has to reimburse the (full) legal costs if preliminary relief proceedings are withdrawn before the court session commences. I have conducted legal proceedings on this matter and have previously published about this subject. The Dutch Supreme Court has recently brought an end to this uncertainty: if the (former) claimant withdraws the case, he shall be burdened with the actual costs the (former) defendant has incurred.
Read MoreA new edition of our NEWS is out! An easy-to-read overview of developments in advertising law, intellectual property and food law.
Read MoreIn April the most important rankings for lawyers and law firms were published: Chambers and Legal 500. Chambers and Legal 500 research the legal market in detail and gauge the opinions of clients and colleagues. Only the best lawyers and firms are listed. Just like in previous years Hoogenraad & Haak and our lawyers do very well in the rankings. Many thanks to our clients and colleagues for providing us with great feedback!
Read MoreA patent is in principle valid for 20 years. Thereafter, the monopoly lapses and other parties can proceed with the invention. The medicine, Seretide (which is used in asthma-inhalers, “puffers” from the producer GSK) was protected by patent. GSK sold inhalers in various shades of purple and in diverse dosages.
Read MoreShoe designer Guillaume Philibert has designed and sold shoes (called Low Tops) for quite some time. See for example the Low Top Python on the left. At first he started his business as an independent trader and from 2014 in the form of a Limited Liability Company (Filling Pieces BV). In 2015, a competing shoe store, De Schoenenfabriek, launched de Sneaker Snake, pictured to the right. Both models look remarkably similar to one another. A clear infringement of copyright and model rights, one would think.
Read MoreIn a dispute concerning two patents with respect to interactive television screens, the question arose whether the patented inventions of Smart Technologies UCL had lead to valid patent rights and whether CTouch Europe BV had infringed those rights. CTouch claimed that Smart Technologies had not clearly substantiated its infringement claims.
Read MoreAfter a conflict of more than 17 years, adidas finally won at the Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden. In the meantime, the case landed on the desks of many different courts (the Court of Justice of the EU, the Supreme Court). In this case the question arose whether the 3-striped pattern could be seen as a trade mark. The CJEU held that this was the case. It is interesting to note that this case once started as summary proceedings. The Court of Appeal held that even after 17 years, adidas’ claims were still “sufficiently urgent”, since H&M still denied the infringement
Read More
