WEBINAR - Intellectual Property (IP) Software and IP Management

Beitragsdatum: 
10. September 2024
Categories: 
Patent Law, Patents, Seminar, Trademark Law, Trademarks, IP Rights, Intellectual Property Law
Tags: 
#intellectualproperty, #software, #aisoftware, #trademarks, #ipmanagement

State-of-the-art IP management in the year 2024 requires in-depth expertise and an outstanding cloud- and AI-based software. As an interdisciplinary team of lawyers and patent attorneys as well as computer scientists, engineers and physicists, the IP firm LexDellmeier - www.lexdellmeier.com - and the  German-based software company IP Servant GmbH - https://www.ip-servant.com - helps your IP department in the company or your IP law firm with the strategic planning and implementation with respect to the digitalization of your files, the introduction or improvement of processes & workflows the implementation of the cloud- and AI-based IP software “IP Servant”.

ld_banner_webinar_linkedin_1280x720_ev2_neu.png

ld_banner_webinar_linkedin_1280x720_ev2_neu.png

  Weiterlesen über WEBINAR - Intellectual Property (IP) Software and IP Management

Another year older…

Beitragsdatum: 
11. Mai 2016
Tags: 
Anniversary, Corporate INTL Awards

And what a year it was! On May 1, 2016 LexDellmeier IP Law firm turned seven. Founded in 2009, each year has brought exciting new challenges, cases, clients etc. leading to growth and success and a 2016 award as the Boutique IP Law Firm of the Year in Germany.

 

 

This year we decided to mark our anniversary with a new-and-improved LexDellmeier webpage at www.lexdellmeier.com. Our aim is to give you a full overview of intellectual property, whether you are an IP enthusiast or a newbie just getting interested in the subject. In particular, we have included our blog, which can now be found at http://www.lexdellmeier.com/de/blog.

 

The new Data Protection Regulation and Directive published

Beitragsdatum: 
09. Mai 2016
Categories: 
Intellectual Property Law
Tags: 
Intellectual Property Law, Data Protection

With the booming of online commerce, entering your personal information and sending it to the cloud has become inevitable. Along grew the concern of both citizens and businesses. The lack of control over given data worried many and the fragmentation of laws and complicated national systems of obtaining protection did not help. Therefore, it is no wonder that 90% of the surveyed EU citizens opted for an improved and unified EU data protection legislation.

On 4 April 2016 the European Parliament adopted the new Data Protection Regulation and Directive. The Directive entered into force on 5 May 2016, with a three-year transposition deadline, and the Regulation will enter into force on 24 May 2016, with the application date set for 25 May 2018.

A new report on the economic impact of counterfeit trade published by OECD and EUIPO

Beitragsdatum: 
03. Mai 2016
Tags: 
Counterfeiting, EUIPO, Intellectual Property, OECD

With joined efforts, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) conducted a study on counterfeiting and the impact it had on economy from 2011 to 2013. Their results were published on 18 April 2016 under the name“Trade in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods: Mapping the Economic Impact”. Although presuming the results would not be satisfactory, they have exceeded all expectations, with 2.5% of world trade including counterfeits and up to 5% of imports in the EU. This might not seem significant at first glance, but 2.5% of the world trade amounts to 461 billion USD, which is equal to the GDP of Austria. 5% of EU trade is 116 billion USD, almost the GDP of Hungary. Seeing these numbers in black and white should start the alarm in policymakers´ heads and show how much we are in need of a change in the legislation.

Madrid System celebrates a milestone anniversary

Beitragsdatum: 
29. April 2016
Categories: 
Intellectual Property Law, Trademark Law, Uncategorized
Tags: 
Intellectual Property Law, Trademark law

1891 was the year basketball was created, American Express issued first travelers´ checks and Edison patented motion picture camera. However, the most significant date for intellectual property is April 14, 1891 as it marks the date the Madrid Agreement was adopted.

Trying to escape the bite of the Crocodile

Beitragsdatum: 
27. April 2016
Categories: 
Community Trademark, European General Court, Likelihood of confusion, Uncategorized
Tags: 
Community Trademark, European General Court, Likelihood of confusion

After the European General Court’s (EGC) ruling on September 2015, the battle of the reptiles continues in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). As Lacoste protects their famous crocodile logo, Kajman is trying to prove the difference of their KAJMAN logo.

Background of the case

Wordmark “BIMBO” descriptive for products intended for children

Beitragsdatum: 
26. April 2016
Categories: 
Uncategorized
Tags: 
Decision, descriptive, European General Court

n its judgement of 18 March 2016, the General Court ruled that the wordmark “BIMBO” cannot be registered as a European Trademark. The Italian-speaking consumers of the Union would merely perceive the mark as indicating that the relevant products are intended for children  (Judgement T-33/15).

“BIMBO”

Background of the case

Newly released Common Communication: Convergence on graphic representations of Designs

Beitragsdatum: 
26. April 2016
Categories: 
Uncategorized
Tags: 
Common Communication, Designs, European Trade Mark and Design Network, Graphical representations of Designs

On 15 April 2016, the European Trade Mark and Design Network published a Common Communication on Convergence on graphic representations of designs (CP6).

 

 

The Communication on the Graphical representations of designs is a result of the cooperation between the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), National IP Offices and User Associations in a so-called Convergence Programme. The aim is to reach a common ground in areas where IP offices have different practices.

The CP6 is the first one published in the area of designs. The aim is to give guidance for the examination procedures on e.g.:

Licensing – a way to exploit your trademark

Beitragsdatum: 
19. April 2016
Categories: 
Brand, Licensing, Uncategorized
Tags: 
Brand Value, License Agreements, Trademark Licensing

A trademark can be any sign capable of distinguishing the products of one company from those of another. If you own a trademark, you have exclusive rights to use that trademark on the products you have protected and are offering on the market. This means that you can prevent any third party from using the same or a similar mark for the same products. Consumers usually base their purchasing decision on the good reputation of or their previous experience with a brand. The trademark attached to the products is therefore of great value to a company as it helps the consumers to pick out products from a specific commercial origin.

Through a license agreement the owner of a trademark, the licensor, can allow third parties, the licensees, to use his trademark under certain conditions in return for payment.

Mercedes-Benz: Trademark use in online advertising

Beitragsdatum: 
05. April 2016
Categories: 
Uncategorized
Tags: 
ECJ Decision, Mercedes-Benz Trademark, Online Advertising, Trademark, Trademark Infringement

In its preliminary ruling of 3 March 2016, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that actions on trademark infringements in online advertising cannot be brought against a third party who is not in direct or indirect control of the act constituting the trademark use (Judgement C-179/15).

A case of „Bounty“ hunting in Germany

Beitragsdatum: 
04. April 2016
Categories: 
Distinctiveness, German Federal Court, Three-dimensional trademarks, Uncategorized
Tags: 
Distinctiveness, German Federal Court, three-dimensional trademarks

On 21 October 2015, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that the registered 3D trademark of Mars‘ „Bounty“ chocolate bar is protected against trademark use by competitors. The Court held that if the public perceived the shape of a product as a source indicator, then it was very likely to do the same with a highly similar shape of a competitor’s product, as long as the goods were identical.

Background of the case