Following the oral proceedings that took place two weeks’ ago, the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal has today (16 July 2021) given its answer to the referred question in case G1/21 – whether oral proceedings can be held by video conference without the consent of the parties.
Products and processes in the chemistry and material science fields are often defined using parameters. Sometimes a parametric definition is the only way in which to define the property of a substance or in some cases the substance itself. For example, a new crystalline form of a compound is often defined with reference to peak values from an x-ray diffraction spectra. The viscosity of a liquid reactant may be critical to the performance of an industrial synthesis process.
Oral proceedings in case G1/21 took place today (2 July 2021) for the second time in case, after proceedings were adjourned at the first oral proceedings that took place last month. While we don’t know what the outcome of the oral proceedings will be, the proceedings were at least properly concluded and we can expect the written decision in due course.
When Nike applied to register the word mark FOOTWARE as a UK trade mark, Puma opposed the application. The issue was recently resolved in the High Court.
Smiley Miley, Inc. (‘SMI’), the company owned by American singer Miley Cyrus, has won a six year legal battle to register the trade mark MILEY CYRUS in the EU. The General Court of the European Union (‘the GC’) issued its decisions on 16 June 2021, overturning the refusal of this trade mark application by the EU Intellectual Property Office (‘the EUIPO’).
The General Court of the European Union (‘the GC’) has issued its hotly anticipated decision in Hasbro Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’). This case centres on whether one or more EU trade mark (‘EUTM’) registrations owned by Hasbro Inc. (‘Hasbro’) for the trade mark MONOPOLY are invalid because Hasbro’s intentions, when re-filing a mark that was already protected by an EUTM covering the same goods/services, was to undermine the requirement to prove use of an EUTM.
In their recent decision (T1839/18), the boards of appeal re-affirmed the legality of straw man oppositions. Although this in itself is not news, we felt it offered a good opportunity to look again at the many advantages of anonymously opposing a European patent.
At Oral Proceedings we were involved with earlier this week, the Board of Appeal decided to refer questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal relating to the legality of holding Oral Proceedings before the Board of Appeal by video conference without consent of all parties. This referral may therefore put on hold Appeal hearings at the EPO whilst it remains difficult for parties to travel to Haar to attend Oral Proceedings in person.