Few are those nowadays who have not heard of the wonders of machine learning technologies. Names such as “ChatGPT”, “DeepSeek” or “Midjourney” have become known to virtually everybody and, for many, are now part of our everyday life. Writing a moving poem, drawing a realistic picture or composing a pretty melody has never been as easy as with the help of these new virtual assistants. As artificial intelligence (so-called “AI”) becomes increasingly involved in creative processes, the question of whether copyright protection may be granted to AI-generated content becomes more relevant by the day.
- No specific public policy despite great economic significance
As of today, there is no national legislation addressing specifically the copyright protection of AI-generated content in the EU Member States. The EU “AI Act”, which entered into force on 1 August 2024, also remained silent on the question of copyrightability of AI-generated works. Case law on this particular issue is very scarce across Europe. Yet, the arrival of easily accessible, well-functioning AI-tools already has had a considerable impact on the creative industries and is expected to continue to have a transformative effect on the economic reality of artists. As an example, according to a joint study by GEMA and SACEM (Collective Management Organisations representing authors and composers respectively in Germany and in France) dated 30 January 2024:
- the market for generative AI in the music sector alone is estimated at around 300 million USD for the year 2023, and is expected to reach 3 billion USD by 2028 – this would correspond to 28% of global music copyright collections;
- 35% of music authors and creators declare having used AI technology in their creative work – this number rises to 51% for those under the age of 35;
- 93% of music authors and creators demand that policymakers “pay more attention to the challenges related to AI and copyright”.
- Tips to verify copyrightability of works created with the help of AI
Unsurprisingly, there is a global consensus that copyright necessitates human authorship. Public authorities around the world have excluded copyrightability of contents exclusively generated by AI without human intervention. However, according to a Policy Questionnaire of the Council of the European Union dated 20 December 2024, EU Member States agree that AI-generated outputs may be protected by copyright provided they meet the existing requirements of copyright protection. AI-assisted creations reflecting the personality of the human author and resulting of his or her free and creative choices would thus be protectible. The same approach is taken by the US Copyright Office, who nonetheless stated in its Report “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence” of January 2025 that prompts input into the AI alone do not constitute sufficient human intervention, even with a high level of detail and successive revisions of the prompts.
Based on these principles, here are some things to consider for (human) authors using artificial intelligence to ensure that their creation may enjoy copyright protection:
- Do not limit yourself to written prompts: expression of your creativity may be more visible in outputs generated by other types of input that may be copyrightable in themselves (such as drawings or sounds);
- Use AI-generated outputs as intermediate steps: re-working and editing an output yourself will increase the likeliness of having the final product qualify as a “work”;
- If you insist on letting the AI do most of the heavy lifting: try rearranging and assembling multiple AI-generated outputs into one single piece, as a well-thought combination of outputs may yet be sufficiently original;
- Document everything: from your inputs to your very last tweak on the final work, make sure that you are in a position to prove the extent and intensity of your personal intervention in the creative process.
- Useful links
For more information, please visit the following links:
https://www.gema.de/en/news/ai-study
Virtual Goods in Focus – EU General Court’s First Ruling
The General Court (GC) has issued its first-ever ruling on the distinctiveness of a trademark applied to virtual goods. The decision T11163/23 dated 11 December 2024 – “Glashütte ORIGINAL” concerned the application for the following sign:
- Background of the case
The European Union Trademark (EUTM) application no. 018727034 dated 1 July 2022 covered (inter alia) “downloadable virtual goods such as watches, clocks, and their accessories for online use or use in virtual worlds” (Class 9), as well as “retail services and the provision of these virtual goods” (Classes 35 and 41).
With EUIPO decision of 13 February 2023, the application was provisionally refused for the above-identified goods and services due to Art. 1 (1) (b) – lack of distinctiveness. The Examiner found, in essence, that the mark applied for would, for a non-negligible part of the relevant German public, evoke the reputation of the town of Glashütte (Germany) of excellence in the horological sector, in so far as, even in the context of virtual goods, the goods and services at issue all referred to horological goods and their accessories.
The appeal filed by the applicant on 12 April 2023 was rejected by the EUIPO Board of Appeal on 29 September 2023, who confirmed the EUIPO 1st instance’s findings.
By its action to the General Court, the applicant, Glashütter Uhrenbetrieb GmbH – Glashütte/Sa., seeks the annulment of the EUIPO BoA decision of 29 September 2023 (Case R 773/2023-5).
- The GC’s decision
The applicant relied on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) (b) of Regulation 2017/1001. It complains that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the mark applied for lacked distinctive character in respect of the goods and services. According to the GC, that single plea consists, in essence, of four parts, relating, first, to the reputation of the town of Glashütte in the horological sector, second, to the extension of that reputation to the virtual goods and services at issue, third, to the distinctive character of the figurative characteristics of the mark applied for and, fourth, to the registration of a similar mark.
However, while the GC dealt with the question of how to examine “virtual goods” and services related to such virtual goods, the Court missed the opportunity to establish new and specific examination criteria for this quite new category of goods by merely concluding that the relevant public would tend to interpret virtual goods in the same way as their physical counterparts.
Glashütte: A Symbol of Watchmaking Excellence
The GC confirmed that Glashütte, a town in Saxony near Dresden, is renowned for its tradition of high-quality watchmaking. This reputation shapes how the relevant public perceives the sign, even in the virtual realm: “(…) although it is common ground that the reputation of the town of Glashütte in the traditional horological sector does not currently extend to the field of virtual watchmaking, as the applicant claims, the fact remains that the goods and services at issue expressly refer to horological goods and their accessories”. According to the court, the public will view virtual watches in the same way as physical ones. As a result, the sign will not be perceived as an indicator of origin but rather as promotional information about the quality and authenticity of the goods.
The Transfer of Perception from Real to Virtual Goods
The GC noted that for virtual goods resembling or emulating physical goods, there is generally a transfer of perception: the relevant public tends to interpret virtual goods in the same way as their physical counterparts. However, this transfer must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific nature of the virtual products and services.
In this case, virtual watches may represent physical watches or imitate their functions. Therefore, the public will directly associate the trademark with the reputation of Glashütte in traditional watchmaking. Consequently, the sign “Glashütte original” will be seen as a logical extension of the town’s reputation and as promotional information rather than a distinctive trademark.
- Comment LexDellmeier
The applicant can still (and should) bring an action before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). There is a simple reason for that as several “Glashütte Original” trademarks are registered at the EUIPO and WIPO (e.g. EU 004821773 / IR). Some of these trademarks are also (still) protected for the goods “watches” (class 14) (real - not virtual...). After the GC’s latest judgment regarding “virtual goods” and the analogy to “real goods”, the question arises as to whether these registrations could possibly be challenged or be ready for cancellation due to lack of distinctiveness. From the point of view of a trademark practitioner and in view of the trademark owner’s interests, Glashütte should take action against this development.
For more information, please find extracts of the decision here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62023TJ1163.
Has the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) rejected your trademark application but the decision is not yet final? Consider withdrawing the application to keep the option alive to convert your application into national trademark applications in individual EU Member States – without the restrictions that apply to conversion after final refusal.
Background
If you file a new European Union trademark application, the EUIPO will, inter alia, examine if the applied for sign is distinctive for the designated goods and services in ALL of the European Union territory. If it is not, your application will be rejected – even if the bar to registration only exists in part of the EU. This is a consequence of the unitary character of a European Union trademark which grants protection in all 27 EU Member States with just one (1) registration.
Obviously, a rejection of your trademark application based on a lack of distinctiveness or a descriptive character in only part of the EU will not invalidate your desire and need for trademark protection in those parts of the EU where the application is not descriptive, but distinctive.
In such situation, the question arises whether or not – and at which point(s) in time - the applicant is offered the possibility to convert an European Union trademark application into national applications in individual EU Member States while keeping the application date of the European Union trademark application. Remember: The application date is important if your trademark ever has to be enforced as the EU applies a “first to register” regime and the party with the earliest trademark application date will have the best rights.
Once the rejecting decision has become final, it is clear that that applicant has the right to convert its EU trademark application and to file applications in such Member States for which the EUIPO did not find a lack of distinctiveness (or another bar to registration), see Article 139(2)(b) EUTMR. But what about converting your trademark application if the rejecting decision is not yet final?
On 22 February 2024, the Executive Director of the EUIPO filed a request (the first of its kind) with the Grand Board of Appeal for their opinion on a point of law regarding the possibility of conversion despite a not-yet-final decision refusing an applied for mark. Is it possible to convert an application that has been rejected by the Office but where the rejecting decision has not yet become final? And does it make a difference if an appeal – against the first instance decision or against the Board of Appeal decision - had been filed or not?
Upon publication of the request for a reasoned opinion, relevant stakeholders were invited to submit observation and the matter was discussed.
The Decision
On 15 October 2024, the Grand Board of Appeal of the EUIPO issued its opinion on the Executive Director’s request confirming the following (see R0497/2024-G):
- As long as the EUIPO’s refusal decision has not yet become final, the applicant may withdraw the European Union trademark application.
- It does not make a difference in which instance the application is pending, that is if the application is withdrawn during the period of appeal against the first instance decision, during the appeal proceeding or during the period to further appeal a Board of Appeal decision. There is no relevant distinction between these different periods in time as long as the refusal has not yet taken effect.
- After withdrawing an European Union trademark application, any examination and appeal proceeding becomes devoid of purpose and the possibility of requesting a conversion of the application into national applications in individual EU Member States is opened up.
- There is no restriction as to the Member States in which a national application can be requested following conversion. The restriction of Article 139(2)(b) EUTMR does not apply and a request to convert a withdrawn European Union trademark application into national applications, subsequent to its non-final refusal by the EUIPO, does not constitute an attempt to circumvent the prohibition of Article 139(2)(b) EUTMR.
Strategic Advice
When you receive a decision that rejects your European Union trademark application, consider carefully if you let it take effect or if you withdraw your application before the rejection becomes final as this will influence the scope of your possibilities to convert your European Union trademark application into national trademark applications in individual EU Member States.
Should you have any questions or if you would like to discuss possibilities to convert your European Union trademark application, you are welcome to contact us by email at info@lexdellmeier.com or by phone at 089 55 879 870.
NEW - International Comparative Legal Guide – Designs 2025 – NOW AVAILABLE
If you are looking for practical insights and intelligence on design law in different jurisdictions, the International Comparative Legal Guide published by glg Global Legal Group is a valuable source of information.
Recently published in its 5th edition, the International Comparative Legal Guide – Designs 2025 covers the following countries (in alphabetical order): Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States. The individual country chapters are similarly structured and provide directly comparable, annually updated Q&A chapters on different aspects of design law, inter alia, on application and registration procedure, on grounds for refusal and how to overcome them, on opposition and invalidity proceedings (if any) or on design enforcement and possible defenses.
This year, LexDellmeier was happy to contribute the country chapter covering Germany and we gladly invite you to review our chapter – and of course the rest of the legal guide should you look for design related information in one of the other countries.
If you enjoyed reading our country chapter for Germany, we will be glad to hear from you by phone at 089 55 879 870 or by email to info@lexdellmeier.com
Christmas is only a few weeks away! Now is the time for including gifts for your loved ones to your shopping lists. But as you browse through busy stores or infinite lists of products online looking for bargains, do not let the sweet vapours of mulled wine dull your senses. As the EUIPO and EUROPOL recently highlighted in a joint report published on 23 October 2024 on the ecosystem of Intellectual Property (IP) crime, counterfeit goods keep finding their way to our shelves and represent a staggering 5.8% of EU trade. The report sheds light on how much IP crime remains a threat to European consumers, how it is enabled, and how its impact could be mitigated.
- The scale of the threat
According to EUROPOL and the EUIPO, IP crime can be defined as “theft, infringement and unauthorised use of intellectual property”. Criminal activity of this nature is not new and seems to be flourishing to this day: during the year 2022 alone, an estimated 86 million items infringing intellectual property rights were seized on EU territory for an overall value of over EUR 2 billion. Toys, cigarettes and DVDs were the most commonly seized items, but cosmetics, food products, pharmaceuticals and virtually every other category of goods is concerned. As a result, IP crime represents a serious risk both for consumers’ health and for the EU’s economy as a whole.
Disturbing examples according to the report:
- Counterfeit tobacco products worth EUR 17 Million were seized in France alone
- 260,000 litres of counterfeit olive oil were seized, unfit for consumption and posing a public health risk
- A Chinese money-laundering network was able to smuggle EUR 1 Million daily with proceeds from counterfeit goods trafficking
- Banned pesticides were smuggled and used in protected areas, putting the environment and public health at risk
- Key findings and ideas
Interestingly, despite the potential health hazards of counterfeit goods, the report identifies the consumers’ own behaviour as one of the main drivers of the development of IP crime in the EU, if not the most important one. Consumer demand for low-priced items is currently high, due in part to the ongoing trend of the cost of living steadily increasing. Widespread access to internet, frequent use of social media and the rise of online influencers act as a catalyst to the sale of IP-infringing items by facilitating the coming together of consumers in search of cheap products and those in a position to offer them. As an example, a clandestine laboratory confectioning illegal anabolic steroids was dismantled in 2023, after social media influencers in Romania with popular dietary and nutrition channels promoted the drugs directly to their communities.
On the “sellers’” side, IP crime is now mostly driven by large, professional criminal networks operating not only in the EU, but on a global scale. Ingenious ways of acquiring, smuggling, transporting and retailing IP-infringing products are conceived in all parts of the world and implemented by groups with experience in other criminal activities, such as the forging of false documents (for instance, fake certificates to deceive consumers as to the origin of the goods to the detriment of Geographical Indication holders) or money laundering. Here too, innovation allows for profit, as cryptocurrencies are frequently used as means of payment for counterfeit commodities. To make matters even more complex for law enforcement authorities, real, legal instruments are abused to give criminal enterprises the appearance of legitimacy.
Overall, the report concludes that more law enforcement and judicial action is warranted in the fight against IP crime. Even more importantly, raising awareness of the general public to the dangers of IP crime and the sheer scale of the problem is a priority, as understanding and mitigating risks associated with counterfeit purchases is crucial for our wellbeing. So, if Santa Claus reads this, please be careful about what you put under the Christmas tree this year.
- Useful links
For more information on the EUROPOL and EUIPO report, please visit the following links:
Understanding Trademark Law Through the Lens of Halloween: A Spooky Guide
Halloween, with its pumpkins, costumes, and haunted houses, is one of the most exciting and creative times of the year. But behind the spooky masks and candy bowls lies a complex world of Intellectual Property Law, especially trademarks, which many businesses need to navigate carefully during the season. 
The holiday is an ideal opportunity for businesses to launch special Halloween-themed products, from limited-edition packaging to pop-up stores. But as companies jump on the Halloween bandwagon, they must be wary of the legal risks lurking in the shadows – particularly when it comes to trademark law. Whether you’re a small business creating custom merchandise or a larger company launching a seasonal marketing campaign, understanding how trademark law applies during Halloween can save you from a legal nightmare.
What is a Trademark?
As you may know, a trademark is any word, phrase, symbol, or design that identifies and distinguishes the origin of goods or services of one party from those of others. For businesses, trademarks are essential assets that protect brand identity and consumer trust. They give companies the exclusive right to use a particular trademark in commerce, preventing competitors from using an identical or similar sign.
In the context of Halloween, think of famous symbols like the “Jack-o’-lantern” or phrases like “Trick or Treat.” While some generic symbols or phrases cannot be trademarked because they are widely used, unique designs or logos related to Halloween can be (and have been) registered as trademarks if they meet the legal requirements.
Halloween and Popular Trademarks
Halloween offers a wealth of creative opportunities for businesses, but it also carries the risk of unintentionally infringing on someone else’s trademark. For example, some popular costumes or merchandise inspired by movies, TV shows, and famous characters – such as Frankenstein’s monster, vampires, or superheroes – are often protected by trademarks or other intellectual property rights. Trademarks containing the term “HALLOWEEN” are protected via several EU trademarks for various goods and services (e.g. EU 000152512 “HALLOWEEN” for goods in class 3, EU 007101785 “HAPPY HALLOWEEN” for goods in class 30, EU 009220765 “A WHOLE LOT OF HALLOWEEN” for goods in classes 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28).
A well-known example of a Halloween-related trademark battle is between Disney and smaller retailers. Disney has aggressively protected its trademarks, particularly around its Halloween-themed characters like Jack Skellington from The Nightmare Before Christmas. While businesses may be tempted to create costumes, decorations, or merchandise inspired by these beloved characters, they risk facing legal action from Disney if they don’t have the proper licensing agreements.
For businesses selling Halloween-themed products or costumes, it is critical to check whether the designs or names you’re using are already protected by someone else’s trademark. Ignoring this step could lead to costly lawsuits or cease-and-desist letters. For example, creating a product that uses the iconic silhouette of a famous Halloween character without permission can easily result in trademark infringement claims.
Don’t Let Trademark Law Haunt You
If your company plans to create a unique Halloween product or event, securing trademark protection can be a valuable strategy. Registering your Halloween-themed name, logo, or product design with the appropriate trademark office ensures that you have the legal rights to prevent others from using a similar mark. This not only protects your business but also strengthens your brand’s identity in the marketplace.
Before launching your product, conduct a thorough trademark search to ensure that your Halloween ideas don’t overlap with existing trademarks.
Halloween is a time for fun, creativity, and innovation, but businesses need to be mindful of trademark laws to avoid potential legal pitfalls. Whether you’re marketing a new spooky treat, hosting a Halloween-themed event, or designing merchandise, make sure you protect your intellectual property and respect the rights of others.
Happy Halloween – and stay legally safe! LexDellmeier will be happy to advise and support your company on questions of trademark law. Please feel free to contact us under info@lexdellmeier.com.
(Photo Source: Shutterstock Photo ID 2536795353)
If you are the owner of a registered patent, trademark or design (IP rights), you have surely received communication in the past that looked like it was an invoice coming from an official source, that mentioned the correct registration number of your IP right and that made you assume that you needed to pay this invoice to uphold your IP right. NEVER pay such “invoice” unless you have made sure that it is genuine.
Background
As IP attorneys, we regularly receive emails from clients forwarding letters that they received by mail asking us whether or not those letters are genuine and what they need to do.
Usually, if you register an IP right through patent attorneys or lawyers, the law firm will take care of all administrative measures that are necessary to uphold your rights. The firm will, in particular, monitor the renewal deadline for the IP right and remind you well in advance that and when payment is due. Any official reminder sent by an Intellectual Property Office will be sent to the registered representative of your IP right, but not to you as the owner.
If you directly receive communication and it looks like an invoice, it usually is spam and only intended to rip you off. Somebody not officially associated with an Intellectual Property Office is sending you the letter “offering” to renew your IP right, but the wording of the “offer” is so small that it is overlooked and people get the impression from the overall look of the letter, that it is an invoice that must be paid to avoid the expiry of a patent, trademark or design.
Upon receipt of such letter, a lot of people simply pay. And they pay a lot more than actually needed or they pay for services absolutely unnecessary.
Overall, these misleading invoices are very annoying and the Intellectual Property Offices have been warning about them for a long time.
Recent Decision By German Criminal Court
Recently, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) published information on its website about a German court decision issued in September 2024. The criminal court in Munich – based on a criminal complaint for suspected fraud filed by the EUIPO in December 2020 – found three defendants guilty of commercial gang fraud for sending misleading invoices to EUIPO customers. Each of the defendants was sentenced to 22 months' imprisonment, suspended on probation for three years. In addition, the court confiscated an amount of approximately EUR 200,000 which the defendants had unlawfully obtained with their “invoices”.
According to information from the EUIPO, this was only the second time that misleading invoices were deemed a criminal offence and were qualified as fraud by a criminal court in an EU Member State. The only other decision had been taken in Sweden in 2017 where the defendants were convicted of gross fraud.
Recommended Behavior
Based on the information above and to not become a victim of fraud, we strongly recommend that you do not pay any “invoice” that you receive in an IP matter unless you have clarified with the Intellectual Property Office or with an IP attorney that the invoice is genuine. For an initial check, you can refer to the list of scam letters and emails published by the EUIPO on the misleading invoices section on its website.
Should you have any questions or if you would like to know if an “invoice” that you received is genuine and should be paid to avoid the expiry of your IP right, you are welcome to contact us by email at info@lexdellmeier.com or by phone at 089 55 879 870.
Upon examining trademark applications, national trademark offices in the EU may refuse to register a sign that is contrary to “public policy” or “accepted principles of morality”. This somewhat lesser-known absolute ground of refusal of registration is provided for by Article 4(1)(f) of the Trade Mark Directive (EU) 2015/2436 (TMD). In an effort to further harmonise the practices of the Member States’ Intellectual Property Offices, the EU Intellectual Property Network has issued a dedicated “Common Practice” to provide more clarity on this ground of refusal to the national Intellectual Property Offices.
- What is a “Common Practice”?
Examination procedures of EU Trademark and Design applications are famously described in detail in the EUIPO’s Guidelines. At a national level, the EU Intellectual Property Network brings together the EUIPO with the national and regional IP Offices of the EU to develop common examination standards and practices in all IP matters. This effort includes the establishment of Common Practices aimed at providing guidance to the national IP Offices, in particular with regard to the examination of trademark applications.
- New guiding principles on Article 4(1)(f) TMD
As of 19 July 2024, Common Practice 14 was implemented by all national IP Offices in the EU. The objective is not to impose a certain view on what is or should be seen as lawful in each EU Member State, but rather to facilitate a common understanding of the concepts of public policy and accepted principles of morality, as well as define common criteria for assessing Article 4(1)(f) TMD.
According to the new Common Practice, the contours of both concepts may vary from Member State to Member State and evolve over time. But overall, “Public policy” consists in a set of fundamental norms, principles and values of societies in the EU at a given point in time. This includes the universal values of the EU laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007. “Accepted principles of morality” refer to the fundamental moral values and standards accepted by the society in the EU at a given time. Thus, the former derives from reliable, objective sources such as EU legislation or case law, while the latter implies an empirical assessment of what the acceptable norms of conduct are in a given society at a given time (which corresponds for instance to religious, cultural or social standards).
As for the assessment of the trademark application against the ground of refusal, IP Offices need to proceed on a case-by-case basis considering the normal level of sensitivity and tolerance of the relevant public as well as the circumstances specific to the Member State concerned. All possible meanings of the examined sign must be identified and analysed. Then, Offices will determine whether the goods and services and the context in which they will be offered may accentuate or mitigate the objectionable meaning of the sign: as an example, registering “Kill them all” for insecticides would be acceptable, but not for daycare services for babies. CP14 also includes a reminder of the established EU case law whereby freedom of expression should be taken into account in the assessment of the sign, although no guidance is provided as to how this should be done.
- Useful links
For more information on CP14, please visit the following links:
https://www.euipo.europa.eu/es/news/publication-and-implementation-of-cp14
LEXDELLMEIER WEBINAR ON AMENDMENTS TO EU DESIGN LAW
Are you the owner of a registered design in the European Union and have your design protected products been copied by way of 3D printing with you not being able to proceed against the person selling the 3D printing software? Or have your design protected goods been shown in the metaverse with you not being able to take action against such use for lack of “physical embodiment”? Then we have good news for you. A new EU-Design Directive as well as a new EU-Design Regulation will soon come into force and will extend design protection beyond physical objects. For more information, you are welcome to attend our webinar on 9 October 2024 at 4.00 pm (CEST). Get an overview of the webinar’s agenda by reading our newest blog article.
- Background
Design law in the European Union had not been updated for over 20 years. For about the last 10 years, reviews and consultations had been conducted between the different stakeholders to determine and discuss the necessity and extent of changes to the EU design law system. In March 2024, the EU parliament finally adopted a new Design Regulation and Directive to be published in the Official Journal shortly. The Regulation will come into effect 4 months after publication and regarding the Directive, the EU member states will have 3 years (36 months) to implement it into national law.
- Agenda of LexDellmeier Webinar
LexDellmeier IP Law Firm will hold a one-hour webinar on
9 October 2024 at 5.00 pm (CEST)
to present and discuss the new amendments in detail. We will discuss
- The broadening of the scope of design protection by new definitions of the terms “design” and “product”;
- The addition of new acts of infringement to give design owners better coverage in proceeding against infringements;
- The new repair clause which is particularly intended to increase competition in the spare parts market;
- Changes in general terminology which align EU design law with EU trademark law;
- The waiver of the "one (Locarno) class" requirement;
- The adoption of a new design protection symbol consisting of a D in a circle like the C for copyrights and the R for registered trademarks; and finally
- Changes in the official fees that the new Regulation will implement and how it can influence your application strategy.
Come and join us at our Zoom webinar on 9 October 2024 at 4.00 pm (CEST). The webinar is free of charge and you can easily register via Eventbrite or send an email to us at: info@lexdellmeier.com We look forward to seeing you at the webinar!
Should you not be able to attend the webinar, you are welcome to contact us at any time for further information on the new EU design law, either by email to info@lexdellmeier.com or by phone at +49 89 55 879 870.