The 3D Pen is Mightier

January 22nd, 2016 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Intellectual Property | Trademarks - (0 Comments)

The BIC company registered the shape of its renowned pens as a tri-dimensional Community trademark in 1997.

(more…)

“Je Suis Paris” – Trademark Refusal on the Ground of Politics

January 22nd, 2016 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Intellectual Property | Trademarks - (0 Comments)

Following the November ’15 terror attacks in Paris, the French Trademark Office (“INPI”) received and subsequently
rejected numerous attempts of registration of the signs “Pray For Paris” and “Je Suis Paris” (“I am Paris”).
The refusals were justified on the ground that “these signs consisted in terms which may not be monopolized by an
economic actor due to their use and perception by the collectivity”.

This position differed from the one expressed after the January 7, 2015 attacks against Charlie Hebdo, where the attempts to register “Je Suis Charlie” (“I Am Charlie”) had been refused on public order grounds. Further to Articles L711-1 and L711-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code, a sign has to be distinctive, available and lawful to be registered. The INPI Director’s decision dated November 20, 2015 retained the unlawfulness of the applied signs, considering their perception by the public.

From a European point of view, such refusal could also be admitted on the ground of Article 7.1.f of the Community
Trademark Regulation. However, if the French decision appears politically appropriate, its basis may be seen as legally weak. Indeed, the words themselves are not unlawful, while their relations to terrorist attacks, and the intent to market on such events, could be interpreted as an offense to public order.

The INPI based its interpretation on the very nature of the trademark, which is “to distinguish goods and services”
without confusion as to their origins, as per Article L711-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code.

In the meantime, “Pray For Paris” and “#PrayForParis” have been respectively registered in the UK in 2013 (and
consequently without pre-existing relation to the November ’15 events) and applied for in Germany the day following the event.

It remains to be seen if a common European position emerges from the tragedy.

First publication: K&L Gates Trademark and Unfair Competition Bulletin, 01/2016 with Audrey Decima

Swatch (WIPO no. 506 123) / Ice Watch (WIPO no. 1 029 087) – Second Time Comes the Charm?

January 22nd, 2016 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Intellectual Property | Trademarks - (0 Comments)

On October 6 2015, the Commercial Division of the French Supreme Court (“Cour de Cassation”) confirmed the refusal of Paris Court of Appeal to register the “Ice Watch” trade mark. This decision follows the 2008 co-existence agreement concluded between the respective owners of the “Swatch” trademark and the “Ice Watch” business

(more…)

Did the ECJ Kill the Safe Harbor Framework on E.U.-U.S. Data Transfers?

October 6th, 2015 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Case Law | Data Transfer | Europe | Privacy - (0 Comments)
On October 6, 2015, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) ruled in the “Schrems”case that the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework on the transfer of personal data from Europe to the United States, was invalid.

For the past 15 years, this Safe Harbor framework gave privileged status to U.S. companies, allowing for such entities to “self-certify” that they complied with privacy standards negotiated between the European Commission and the United States Department of Commerce under the Clinton Administration in 1999, and were viewed as “adequate” by the EU. Effective immediately, today’s ruling may force all of the 4,400 U.S. entities that currently relying on the Safe Harbor to access the data of their EU partners and subsidiaries, to seek alternate modes of data transfer or risk non-compliance with EU data protection requirements.
(more…)

🇫🇷 L’avocat à l’ere numerique, FNUJA de Draguignan

March 6th, 2015 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Conference | France | internet | IT | Marketing | Non classé - (0 Comments)

Prima Biomed Ltd. completed the acquisition of Immutep, S.A. for $25 million.

December 17th, 2014 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Communication | Deal | eHealth - (0 Comments)

Prima Biomed Ltd. (ASX:PRR) entered into an agreement to acquire Immutep, S.A. for $28 million in cash, shares and warrants on October 2, 2014. Acquisition funding of the total consideration of up to approximately $28 million will be funded with up to $18 million in cash, partly based on the achievement of key milestones, the issue of Prima ordinary shares totaling approximately $3 million and based on a VWAP calculation and the issue of 200 million warrants equating to a consideration value of approximately $7 million. In order to fund the acquisition and provide ongoing working capital, Prima Biomed has secured an investment agreement with Bergen Global Opportunity Fund, LP managed by Bergen Asset Management for up to $37.4 million. Immutep’s founder and Scientific and Medical Director, Frederic Triebel will join Prima as its Chief Scientific Officer, along with his scientific team, to oversee the LAG-3 development program and to advise on the ongoing development of CVac. The deal is subject to approval of Prima Biomed Ltd. shareholders. As of November 14, 2014, the transaction was approved by shareholders of Prima Biomed Ltd.

Adam Holdsworth from ProActive Capital, Matthew Gregorowski from Citadel Communications and Axel Muhlhaus from edicto GmbH acted as the public relation advisors in this transaction. Jean-Patrice Labautière, François Lan, Alexandre Brossier, Claude-Etienne Armingaud, Ariane Samson-Divisia, Julie Bouchard, Bertrand Dussert and Glenn Hughes of K&L Gates acted as legal advisors to Prima Biomed Ltd. Pascale Gallien and Vincent Maufront of Heenan Paris acted as legal advisors for shareholders of Immutep.

Prima Biomed Ltd. (ASX:PRR) completed the acquisition of Immutep, S.A. for $25 million in cash, shares and warrants on December 17, 2014. Prima made upfront cash payment of $10.8 million with the remaining cash component of $7.2 million partly payable on the achievement of a predetermined milestone and partly payable after 12 months subject to the satisfaction of warranty retention arrangements. The total consideration paid by Prima for the acquisition is estimated to be approximately $25 million as opposed to the previously $28 million. The difference is attributable to the reduction in value of the warrants based on the Black Scholes option pricing model using updated market data.

Creation of a new industrial property right in France: the IGPIA

June 4th, 2014 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in France - (0 Comments)

The French law no.2014-344 on consumer protection, named “Hamon Act” (for the name of the Ministry in charge of this reform) and dated March 17, 2014, creates a new industrial property right: the “Geographical Indications protecting Industrial Products and Crafts” (or “Indications Géographiques protégeant les Produits Industriels et Artisanaux”, herein, “IGPIA”). Until now, the protection of geographical indications was reserved, both at French and European level, to agrofood products, leaving aside the industrial and handicrafts products, whose quality is related to a specific know-how linked to their geographical origin. The IGPIAs cover well-known products, such as Quimper pottery, Limoges porcelain, Basque linen or Calais lace. Nine new provisions have been added to the French Intellectual Property Code (IPC), in order to clarify the implementation mechanisms for the management and the protection of IGPIAs.

La loi n°2014-344 relative à la consommation, dite « Loi Hamon » du 17 mars 2014, vient de créer un nouveau de droit de propriété industrielle : les « Indications Géographiques protégeant les Produits Industriels et Artisanaux » (IGPIA). Jusqu’ici la protection des indications géographiques n’était réservée, tant au niveau français qu’européen, qu’aux produits agroalimentaires, laissant de côté la qualité des produits industriels et artisanaux, issue d’un savoir-faire lié à leur origine géographique. Les IGPIA visent des produits reconnus tels que la faïence de Quimper, la porcelaine de Limoges, le linge basque ou encore la dentelle de Calais. Ce sont ainsi neuf dispositions qui ont été ajoutées au Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle (CPI), afin de préciser les mécanismes de mise en œuvre de la gestion et de la protection des IGPIA.

(more…)

The two leading French online private sellers, Vente-privee.com and Showroomprive.com, opened fire against each other with regards to protection of their respective trademarks.

April 15th, 2014 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Case Law | eCommerce | Europe | France | Trademarks - (0 Comments)

The earlier is the owner of the French and Community semi-figurative trademark “vente-privee.com”, underlined with a pink line drawn in diagonal, enriched by two pink butterflies.

The latter is the owner of the French trademark “showroomprive.com” and expected the registration of a community semi-figurative trademark “showroomprive.com” enhanced with some stylized and coloured elements.

However, on August 1, 2012, the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (herein, “OHIM“) refused such application for “SHOWROOMPRIVE.COM” on the ground that the trademark was not distinctive enough and, much to the contrary, was descriptive for the targeted goods and services.

At the same time, on September 5, 2012, Showroomprive.com assigned before the Paris first instance Court, its competitor, Vente-privee.com, in order to invalidate the “vente-privee.com” trademark for lack of distinctiveness. This trademark had been registered since October 14, 2004 without any complains from ShowroomPrive.com or any other third party.

The first instance Court welcomed Showroomprive.com’s request and decided that “the terms ‘venteprivee.com’ was, at the time of the application date, descriptive of the company’s business activity for every consumer wishing to buy online discounted products; and thus such use was necessary to designate its private sales activity.” In addition, the Paris Court highlighted that the trademark had not acquired any “distinctiveness through its use, thus enabling the term to take ownership of generic names, when such names must remain available for all the economic actors from a given sector.”

Meanwhile, on December 6t, 2013, in another law suit, Vente-privee.com assigned the owner of similar domain names (namely vente-priveee.com, ventprivee.com, venteprives.com) on the basis of its cybersquatting activities. The French first instance Court highlighted that the semi-figurative “vente-privée.com” trademark had to be considered as a well-known trademark. Indeed, in this case, the Court decided that the “vente-privée.com” trademark had a strong reputation due to the fact that a significant part of the relevant public made a connection between the trademark and its associated goods and services.

In conclusion, the decision concerning the semi-figurative trademark should not affect the word trademark “SHOWROOMPRIVE.COM” registered in 2007 by the OHIM. Nevertheless, we can legally wonder about the consequences in case of further contestation regarding a word mark and a close watch should be kept on any follow up evolution.

First published in K&L Gates Trade marks and unfair competition Bulletin no. 1/2014 (PDF) in collaboration with Alexandra Bernard.

🇺🇸 ISPA Conference 2013: The Internet industry: what lies ahead?, Internet Service Provider Association – UK, London

November 27th, 2013 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Conference | internet | IT | Legislation | Non classé - (0 Comments)

🇫🇷 #CQTM demonte le web ‘All your data are belong to us’, CQTM

July 2nd, 2013 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Conference | internet | Non classé | Privacy - (0 Comments)