The Market Court: An Apparatus and Method for Treating Pulp Does Not Involve an Inventive Step

The Market Court issued a patent decision 454/16 on 21 July 2016. The court ruled that the applied invention (Apparatus and method for treating pulp) is not patentable because the patent claims do not involve an inventive step. As a result, the court ordered PRH to revoke the patent FI 122775.

Background

Andritz Oy (Andritz) sought patent protection on its invention called "Apparatus and method for treating pulp" on 7 September 2004. The application consisted of two independent claims (1 and 15) and dependent claims 2-14 and 16-24. The Patent and Registration Office (PRH) granted a patent for the invention (FI 122775) on 29 June 2009.

FI 122775, Figs. 1a-1b.

Metso Paper Sweden AB (Metso) lodged an invalidation claim against the patent. During the invalidity proceedings at PRH, Andritz filed amended claims first on 16 October 2013 and later on 12 May 2014. PRH granted a patent for the invention on 1 December 2014 in accordance with the amended claims provided on 12 May 2014 (independent claims 1 and 12 and dependent claims 2-11 and 13-21).

Later on, the company name Metso was changed to Valmet AB (Valmet).

Valmet did not agree with the decision of PRH and lodged an appeal at the Market Court. Valmet requested the Market Court to reverse the decision of PRH.

The Market Court

According to section 1 paragraph 1 of the Patents Act (550/1967), anyone who has, in any field of technology, made an invention which is susceptible of industrial application, or his or her successor in title, is entitled, on application, to a patent and thereby to the exclusive right to exploit the invention commercially, in accordance with this Act.

According to section 2 of the Act, patents may only be granted for inventions which are new in relation to what was known before the filing date of the patent application, and which also involve an inventive step with respect thereto. Everything made available to the public in writing, in lectures, by public use or otherwise is considered to be known.

According to section 25 paragraph 1 of the Act, the Patent Authority shall revoke a patent on account of an opposition [inter alia] if the patent relates to an invention that does not satisfy the requirements of sections 1 and 2.

The Applied Claims

The independent claims 1 and 12 (translated with the help of CA2578004 A1):

1. An apparatus for treating pulp, said apparatus comprising at least one liquid-permeable surface rotating around a shaft, onto which surface a pulp layer is formed, means for feeding the pulp being treated into the apparatus, means for discharging the treated pulp from the apparatus and means for removing filtrates from the apparatus, characterized in that the apparatus is provided with at least one inside construction for forming at least two treatment sections in the apparatus in such a way that each of the sections is connected to means for feeding at least one pulp so that the pulps treated in the sections come from essentially different treatment stages and to pulp removal means so that the treated pulps are removed from the apparatus separately, whereby the apparatus comprises a first and a second treatment section, the pulp feeding means of the first thereof being connected to a first treatment stage with first treatment conditions and the pulp feeding means of the second thereof being connected to a second treatment stage with second conditions.

12. A method for treating pulp, in which method the pulp is fed onto a liquid-permeable surface rotating around a shaft of the treatment apparatus, onto which surface a pulp layer is formed, wherefrom liquid is removed, and the treated pulp is removed from the apparatus, characterized in that a first layer of pulp is formed on the rotating surface, said pulp coming from a first treatment stage, and in a distance from the first layer in the longitudinal direction of the shaft a second pulp layer is formed, said pulp coming from a second treatment stage, and the pulp layers are treated essentially separately from each other.

Prior Art

The prior art in this case consists of the following documents:

O1: US 5641402
O2: US 5275024
O3: WO 92/22703
O4: US 4551248.

Novelty and Inventive Step

The court stated that the drum filter defined in the applied invention is new compared to the solutions defined in the prior art. 

The court then moved on to assess the inventive step regarding the claims 1 and 12.

The court considered that the apparatus described in the claim 1 and the apparatus described in the prior art O1 have only one difference: the former is describing a drum filter whereas the latter is describing a disc filter.

The court stated that the invention described in the O1 is solving the same problem as the drum filter described in the claim 1 of the applied invention. The court also stated that, according to the description of the O1, the disc filter and drum filter are alternatives regarding apparatus for treating pulp in the pulp and paper industry.

According to the court, the use of drum filter does not require any particular technical solution. Consequently, it is considered to be obvious to the person skilled in the art. The technical solution defined in the claim 1 does not involve an inventive step.

The method described in the claim 12 comprises the same technical features as the apparatus described in the claim 1. Consequently, this claim does not involve an inventive step, either.

The invention is not patentable.

As a result, the court returned the case to PRH and ordered PRH to revoke the patent FI 122775.

The Market Court: A Method and System for Relaying and Managing Call Messages Is Not Patentable

The Market Court issued a patent decision 453/16 on 20 July 2016. The court ruled that the applied invention (Method and system for relaying and managing call messages) is not patentable because the original patent claims are lacking novelty and they do not involve an inventive step. Furthermore, the secondary claims do not involve an inventive step.

Background

Oy Exrei Ab (Exrei) sought patent protection on its invention called "Method and system for relaying and managing call messages" on 31 January 2006. The application consisted of three independent claims (1, 21 and 41) and dependent claims 2-20, 22-40 and 42-43. The Patent and Registration Office (PRH) granted a patent for the invention (FI 117912) on 14 April 2007.

FI 117912, Fig. 2.

Miratel Oy (Miratel) lodged an invalidation claim against the patent, but PRH dismissed the invalidation claim on 6 May 2008. Miratel then lodged an appeal at the Board of Appeal at PRH. The Board of Appeal accepted the invalidation claim and returned the case to PRH on 14 October 2011. PRH revoked the patent on 17 February 2012. According to PRH, the independent and dependent claims do not involve an inventive step.

Later on, the company name Exrei was changed to Everon Ab (Everon) and Miratel into Ascom Miratel Oy (Ascom Miratel).
  
Everon did not agree with the decision of PRH and lodged an appeal at the Market Court. Everon requested the Market Court to reverse the decision of PRH. 

Furthermore, according to Everon, the patent application should be accepted in accordance with the claims that were under examination in the decision of PRH or, if that is not possible, in accordance with the claims attached into the appeal (independent claims 1, 17 and 33 and dependent claims 2-16, 18-32 and 34-35).

The Market Court

According to section 2 of the Patents Act (550/1967), patents may only be granted for inventions which are new in relation to what was known before the filing date of the patent application, and which also involve an inventive step with respect thereto. Everything made available to the public in writing, in lectures, by public use or otherwise is considered to be known.

According to section 8 paragraph 2 of the Act, the application shall contain [inter alia] a precise statement of the subject matter for which patent protection is sought.

According to section 13 of the Act, an application for a patent may not be amended in such a way that protection is claimed for matter not disclosed in the application at the time it was filed.

According to section 25 paragraph 1 of the Act, the Patent Authority shall revoke a patent on account of an opposition [inter alia] if the patent relates to an invention that does not satisfy the requirements of section 2, or if the patent contains subject matter not included in the application as filed.

Prior Art

The prior art in this case consists of documents D1-D20 (a list with document names can be found in the decision). However, the court decided to dismiss the D4 because its publication date was not unambiguous.

The Original Patent Claims

The independent claims 1, 21 and 41 (translated with the help of US 20090016511 A1):

1. A method for relaying and managing service calls, wherein a customer terminal sends a call and a service terminal receives an assignment, characterised by transmission of the call information from the customer terminal to the server (120), in which the server-based data on the service providers comprise data for establishing a connection to the service provider's service terminal and additional service provider data, whereby a call arriving at the server activates the server's selection of a service provider on the basis of the data contained in the call (130) and said additional data (140), and to send an assignment based on the data of the call to the service terminal (150) in accordance with the contact information of the selected service provider.

21. A system for relaying and managing service calls that comprises customer terminals (230, 250) for sending calls and service terminals (270) for receiving assignments that is characterised by the system comprising a server (210) that has memory (214) for storing the information of the service providers, which comprises data for establishing a connection to the service provider's service terminal (270) and additional service provider data, with the system further comprising the means (212, 230-250) for relaying the call data from a customer terminal (230, 250) to the server (210), whereby the server is arranged to be activated on the incoming call and perform selection of a service provider on the basis of the data contained in the call and said additional data, and to send an assignment based on the data of the call to the service terminal (270) in accordance with the contact information of the selected service provider.

41. A server (210) for relaying and managing service calls in a system that comprises customer terminals (230, 250) for sending calls and service terminals (270) for receiving assignments, characterised by the server having memory (214) for storing the information of the service providers, which contains data for establishing a connection to the service provider's service terminal and additional service provider data, with the server further comprising the means (212) for receiving call data from a customer terminal, whereby the server is arranged to be activated upon the incoming call and select a service provider on the basis of the data contained in the call and the said additional data, and to send (216) an assignment based on the data of the call to the service terminal in accordance with the contact information of the selected service provider.

The court considered that all the features of the independent claim 1 are found in a prior art D1a. The D1a is an issue of a customer magazine produced by Ascom Miratel. The D1a introduces a software called CareWin. The software is used to receive safety calls and alarms. This software is, according to the court, a method for relaying and managing call messages, in which a customer terminal (safety phone) sends a call and a service terminal (caretaker of a person responsible for the service) receives an assignment and in which there is a transmission of the call information from the customer terminal to the server (CareWin-software).

The court then stated that the independent claims 21 and 41 consist of the same technical features as defined in the claim 1.

The court concluded that the independent claims 1, 21 and 41 are lacking novelty and they do not involve an inventive step. 

The Secondary Patent Claims

The independent claims 1, 17 and 33 (translated with the help of US 20090016511 A1, the changes are written in red):

1. A method for relaying and managing service calls, wherein a customer terminal sends a call and a service terminal receives an assignment, characterised by transmission of the call information from the customer terminal to the server (120), in which the server-based data on the service providers comprise data for establishing a connection to the service provider's service terminal and additional service provider data, whereby a call arriving at the server activates the server's selection of a service provider on the basis of the data contained in the call (130) and said additional data (140), whereby the said additional data comprising data concerning the services provided by the service provider, whereby the selection of the service provider will be based at least on the call- contained data concerning the service need and said additional data on the services provided by the service provider, and to send an assignment based on the data of the call to the service terminal (150) in accordance with the contact information of the selected service provider, whereby the method includes 

- the server comprising a log memory for storing data pertaining to calls that have arrived and/or assignments sent,  

- storing an acknowledgement saved on the server concerning the reception of an assignment by a service provider and/or an acknowledgement for the completion of a service and 

- invoicing the customer for the services on the basis of said log data.

17. A system for relaying and managing service calls that comprises customer terminals (230, 250) for sending calls and service terminals (270) for receiving assignments that is characterised by the system comprising a server (210) that has memory (214) for storing the information of the service providers, which comprises data for establishing a connection to the service provider's service terminal (270) and additional service provider data, with the system further comprising the means (212, 230-250) for relaying the call data from a customer terminal (230, 250) to the server (210), whereby the server is arranged to be activated on the incoming call, whereby the said additional data comprising data concerning the services provided by the service provider, whereby the selection of the service provider will be based at least on the call- contained data concerning the service need and said additional data on the services provided by the service provider, and perform selection of a service provider on the basis of the data contained in the call and said additional data, and to send an assignment based on the data of the call to the service terminal (270) in accordance with the contact information of the selected service provider;
-whereby the said server of the system includes 

- a log memory for storing data pertaining to calls that have arrived and/or assignments sent, 

- means (214, 218) for storing an acknowledgement saved on the server concerning the reception of an assignment by a service provider and/or an acknowledgement for the completion of a service and 

- means (214, 218) for invoicing the customer for the services on the basis of said log data.

33. A server (210) for relaying and managing service calls in a system that comprises customer terminals (230, 250) for sending calls and service terminals (270) for receiving assignments, characterised by the server having memory (214) for storing the information of the service providers, which contains data for establishing a connection to the service provider's service terminal and additional service provider data, with the server further comprising the means (212) for receiving call data from a customer terminal, whereby the server is arranged to be activated upon the incoming call, whereby the said additional data comprising data concerning the services provided by the service provider, whereby the selection of the service provider will be based at least on the call- contained data concerning the service need and said additional data on the services provided by the service provider, and select a service provider on the basis of the data contained in the call and the said additional data, and to send (216) an assignment based on the data of the call to the service terminal in accordance with the contact information of the selected service provider;
-whereby the said server of the system includes 

- a log memory for storing data pertaining to calls that have arrived and/or assignments sent, 

- means (214, 218) for storing an acknowledgement saved on the server concerning the reception of an assignment by a service provider and/or an acknowledgement for the completion of a service and

- means (214, 218) for invoicing the customer for the services on the basis of said log data.

Ascom Miratel argued first that the claims are amended in such a way that protection is claimed for matter not disclosed in the application at the time it was filed. Furthermore, Ascom Miratel argued also that the amended application does not contain a precise statement of the subject matter for which patent protection is sought. The court dismissed these arguments.

Now it was time to assess whether the invention, in the form of the secondary claims, is new in relation to what was known before the filing date of the patent application, and also involves an inventive step. 

The secondary claim 1 defines, inter alia, how the server comprises a log memory for storing data pertaining to calls that have arrived and/or assignments sent and how the invoicing is based on the log data. The prior art D1a does not contain any information of storing data pertaining to calls that have arrived and/or assignments sent. Therefore, according to the court, the invention defined in the claim 1 is new in relation to the prior art D1a.

However, the court stated that the description of the invention does not explain any technical effect achieved based on the type of data stored and the type of log data used in the invoicing. The description only explains that the method is solving a problem regarding the automation. The court then added that also the method defined in the prior art D1a is automatized.

The court then stated that it would be obvious for the person skilled in the art to use the stored call and/or assignment data in invoicing. The person skilled in the art also understands that the software introduced in the prior art D1a might comprise a feature, or it is possible to add such a feature into the software, in which data, pertaining to calls that have arrived and/or assignments sent, is used.

Therefore, according to the court, the invention defined in the secondary claim 1 does not involve an inventive step.

The court then stated that the secondary claims 17 and 33 comprise the same technical features as the secondary claim 1. Consequently, these claims do not involve an inventive step, either.

The invention is not patentable.

The action is dismissed.

The Market Court: The Applied Invention (Limitation of Voltage Pulse) Does Not Involve an Inventive Step

The Market Court issued a patent decision 452/16 on 20 July 2016. The court ruled that the applied invention (Limitation of voltage pulse) is not patentable because it does not involve an inventive step.

Background

Va­con Oyj (Vacon) sought patent protection on its invention called "Limitation of voltage pulse" on 20 June 2007. The application consisted of two independent claims (1 and 5) and dependent claims 2-4 and 6-12. The Patent and Registration Office (PRH) granted a patent for the invention (FI 119669) on 30 January 2009.

FI 119669, Figs. 1-2.

ABB Oy (ABB) lodged an invalidation claim against the patent. Vacon answered by filing amended patent claims (independent claims 1 and 5 and dependent claims 2-4 and 6-11), but PRH accepted the invalidation claim and revoked the patent on 22 March 2012. According to PRH, the independent claims 1 and 5 are lacking novelty and the claims 1-11 do not involve an inventive step.
  
Vacon did not agree with the decision of PRH and lodged an appeal at the Market Court. Vacon requested the Market Court to reverse the decision of PRH. Furthermore, according to Vacon, the patent application should be accepted in accordance with the amended claims that were under examination in the decision of PRH.

The Market Court  

According to section 2 of the Patents Act (550/1967), patents may only be granted for inventions which are new in relation to what was known before the filing date of the patent application, and which also involve an inventive step with respect thereto. Everything made available to the public in writing, in lectures, by public use or otherwise is considered to be known.

The independent claims 1 and 5 (translated with the help of EP2020742): 

Claim 1:

Method for controlling the output voltage pulses of a PWM frequency converter, in which PWM frequency converter is a network bridge (10) for rectifying the alternating voltage of the supply network into the DC voltage (U_DC) of the DC intermediate circuit, which is filtered with a filtering capacitor (C_DC), a load bridge (11) comprised of phase switches implemented with power semiconductor components, which forms the AC output voltage (U, V, W) from the DC voltage of the intermediate circuit for controlling the load (M),

characterized in that for setting the average speed of change in the output voltage in connection with each change of state of the output voltage at least one power component controlled by a phase switch is controlled such that before the output voltage remains in its position subsequent to the change of state it is on at least once for a short period, typically of less than 1µs (a micropulse), in the position prevailing before the change of state, and a filter containing passive components, with which the voltage of the micropulses is filtered into the final output voltage of the frequency converter.

Claim 5:

Arrangement for controlling the output voltage pulses of a PWM frequency converter, in which PWM frequency converter is a network bridge (10) for rectifying the alternating voltage of the supply network into the DC voltage (U_DC) of the DC intermediate circuit, which is filtered with a filtering capacitor (C_DC), a load bridge (11) comprised of phase switches implemented with power semiconductor components, which forms the AC output voltage (U, V, W) from the DC voltage of the intermediate circuit for controlling the load (M), and a control unit,

characterized in that for setting the average speed of change in the output voltage in connection with each change of state of the output voltage at least one power component controlled by a phase switch is fitted to be controlled such that before the output voltage remains in its position subsequent to the change of state it is on at least once for a short period, typically of less than 1µs (a micropulse), in the position prevailing before the change of state, and that the arrangement comprises a filter containing passive components, with which the voltage of the micropulses is filtered into the final output voltage of the frequency converter.

Novelty

Prior art contains the following documents:

- D1: Deisenroth H., Trabert C. Vermeidung von Überspannungen vei Pulsumrichterantrieben. ETZ. 1993, Bd. 114, Heft 17, s. 1060–1066, and

- D2: DE 4203054.

The court considered that the invention is new in relation to what was known before the filing date of the patent application. According to the court, the prior art does not include a solution in which a micropulse technique is combined with a filter containing passive components.

Inventive step

The court considered that the purpose of the combination of a micropulse technique and a filter containing passive components is to reduce the average speed of change in the output voltage. If the speed of change is too high, it could damage a motor connected to the frequency converter. The description of the invention does not define any other effect which is acquired by using simultaneously a micropulse technique and a filter containing passive components.

According to the court, the reduction of the speed of change by using a micropulse technique or a filter containing passive components is known from the prior art D1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art to combine a micropulse technique with a filter containing passive components.

The appellant also argued that the invention is reducing the costs, size and weight of the required apparatus. The court dismissed these arguments because the claims do not include any features that would clearly highlight these benefits.

Therefore, the invention does not involve an inventive step.

The action was dismissed.

New Registry-Registrar Model Enters into Force for .FI Domain Names

The Finnish domain name system will change after the new legislation included in the Information Society Code (917/2014) enters into force on 5 September 2016. After the change, a person or a company will obtain .fi domain names and all related services from their own registrar. Therefore, the internationally known registry-registrar model enters into force in Finland.

The old system, where the Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority (FICORA) has sold .fi domain names, comes to an end. FICORA is going to continue to take care of the technical maintenance of the domain name register.

Here is a summary of the relevant changes:

- All the .fi domain name holders will have their own registrar managing domain names on behalf of the holder.

- Registrars will provide all the related services, such as applications, renewals, transfers, switching registrars, terminations and updating details.

- Local presence and age requirements (age limit of 15) for applications don't exist anymore. Therefore, the fi-domain names are available for a wider audience.

- A combination of first name and last name can be applied by anyone.

---

FICORA's own website contains information about the new practice.

The Finnish Copyright Society Kopiosto Introduced a Copyright Edutainment Game

In August 2016, the Finnish Copyright Society Kopiosto introduced an edutainment game called Kopiraittila (the game is in Finnish and Swedish). The game is intended for children and young people.

In the game, the player will enter the fictional school of Kopiraittila. At first, the player is in a school hallway and there are four doors. Each door has a sign which determines the level of the player; school classes 1-2, 3-4, 5-7 and 8-9. The player can enter the classroom by clicking the door. The classrooms contain quizzes, memory games and spinning wheels. Kopiosto has stated that it is planning to publish material also for secondary school students.

The game informs the players about the existence of different kinds of copyrights and emphasizes the correct use of sources. Different copyright issues are involved in everyday scenarios, such as the use of Internet and social media, creation of videos and photographing. The game teaches the players to respect the copyrights of others and to be aware of their own copyrights.

"We hope that this visual edutainment material will inspire the students and teachers to create works and to respect copyrights. If one needs to check the correct copyright policy, it is easy to return to the school of Kopiraittila" (FinnIPR translation), says Kirsi Salmela, Licensing Manager, Kopiosto ry.

The game is created by a creative digital agency JCO Digital.

The Market Court: FINKA (Figure) Is Confusable with FINKA for Vodka

The Market Court issued a trademark decision 432/16 on 8 July 2016. The court ruled that the applied national trademark FINKA (figure) is confusable with the earlier European Union trademark FINKA. Both marks are registered in class 33.

Background

Sai­maa Be­ve­ra­ges Oy Ltd (Saimaa) applied to register a figure mark FINKA in class 33 for vodka on 20 August 2014.

Application no. T201451621.

The Patent and Registration Office (PRH) denied the registration (decision 8 April 2015) because the mark is liable to be confused with an earlier European Union trademark (EUTM) registration FINKA (no. 004750634), registered on 13 October 2006. The EUTM FINKA is registered in class 33 for al­co­ho­lic be­ve­ra­ges, in par­ti­cu­lar vod­ka.

Saimaa filed an appeal to the Market Court against the PRH's decision.

The Market Court issued its decision 432/16 on 8 July 2016.

The Market Court

According to section 14 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 9 of the Finnish Trademarks Act (7/1964), a trademark shall not be registered if it is liable to be confused with a European Union trademark within the meaning of section 57 that has been registered on the basis of an earlier application.

According to section 6 paragraph 1 of the Act, trade symbols shall be regarded under this Act as liable to cause confusion only if they apply to goods of identical or similar type.

The court referred to the established case-law and stated the following: 

There is a likelihood of confusion where the public can be mistaken as to the origin of the goods or services in question.

Accordingly, the risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings, constitutes a likelihood of confusion.

The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.

In assessing the similarity of the goods or services concerned, all the relevant factors relating to those goods or services themselves should be taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their intended purpose and their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. The comparison of the goods or services should also focus on their distribution channels and their usual origin.

The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components.

The more similar the goods or services covered and the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion.

The applied mark FINKA (figure) covers the following goods in the class 33: vodka. The earlier EUTM FINKA is registered in class 33 for al­co­ho­lic be­ve­ra­ges, in par­ti­cu­lar vod­ka.

These goods are consequently considered identical.

The court stated that the average Finnish consumer of the category of goods concerned is deemed to be reasonably observant.

The applied mark FINKA is a figure mark and it is written in capital letters. The mark has a rather usual font. The letter A is stylized. 

The earlier EUTM FINKA is a word mark that consists of a word "FINKA". Neither of the parties argued that the word "FINKA" would have any generally known meanings regarding the goods in question. Therefore, the EUTM FINKA has a normal distinctiveness for the goods.

The conflicting marks have a very high degree of visual similarity, despite the stylized letter A in the applied mark. Furthermore, the marks are aurally identical. The conceptual similarity cannot be compared since the word "FINKA" does not have a clear meaning among the relevant public.

The court stated that the conflicting marks have identical goods. Furthermore, the marks have a very high degree of similarity. The court concluded that the applied mark FINKA (figure) is confusable with the mark FINKA.  

The action was dismissed.

The Market Court: CJ (figure) Is Confusable with CJ (figure) for Goods In Class 5

The Market Court issued a trademark decision 431/16 on 8 July 2016. The court ruled that the applied national trademark CJ (figure) is confusable with the earlier European Union trademark CJ (figure). Both marks are registered for goods in class 5.

Background

CJ Cor­po­ra­tion (CJC) applied to register a national trademark CJ (figure) in class 5 for the following goods:

pharmaceutical preparations; antihypertensives; medical preparations; pharmaceutical preparations for treating sensory organ disorders; nervines; chemical preparations for medical purposes; ferments for pharmaceutical purposes; pharmaceutical preparations for diagnosis; food supplements; pain relief preparations; microorganisms (cultures of -) for medical; filled first-aid kits; cotton for medical use; baby foods; lacteal flour for babies; lactose for pharmaceutical purposes; medicated diapers; insecticides; moth proof paper; veterinary preparations; protein supplements for animals; nutritional supplements for animal foodstuffs.

Application no. T201452181.

The Patent and Registration Office (PRH) denied the registration (decision 13 August 2015) because the mark is liable to be confused with an earlier European Union trademark (EUTM) registration CJ (figure, no. 5400494), registered on 29 November 2007. The EUTM CJ (figure) is registered in class 5 for pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations; sanitary preparations for medical purposes, dietetic substances for medical purposes, foodstuffs for babies, plasters, materials for dressing, material for stopping teeth and dental wax, disinfectants, preparations for destroying vermin, fungicides and herbicides. The mark covers also various goods in class 10.

EUTM no. 5400494.

CJC filed an appeal to the Market Court against the PRH's decision.

The Market Court issued its decision 431/16 on 8 July 2016.

The Market Court

According to section 14 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 9 of the Finnish Trademarks Act (7/1964), a trademark shall not be registered if it is liable to be confused with a European Union trademark within the meaning of section 57 that has been registered on the basis of an earlier application.

According to section 6 paragraph 1 of the Act, trade symbols shall be regarded under this Act as liable to cause confusion only if they apply to goods of identical or similar type.

The court assessed first the goods of the conflicting marks and stated that the goods are identical or at least highly similar.

The court assessed then the relevant public. The court referred to the case-law of the Court of Justice (CJ). CJ has ruled that:

For the purposes of that global appreciation, the average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer's level of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question. [See C-342/97 Lloyd, para 26.]

The appellant argued that the goods of the applied mark are mainly prescription drugs and therefore the relevant public does not have an influence on choosing the products and is not able to compare different products and confuse them. 

The court referred to the case-law of the General Court (GC):

As regards the relevant public, it is established case-law that, when the goods in question are medicines, the relevant public is composed of medical professionals, on the one hand, and patients, as the end consumers, on the other.

According to the case-law, medical professionals have a high degree of attentiveness when prescribing medicines. Moreover, with regard to end consumers, it is apparent from the case-law that, in cases where pharmaceutical products are sold without prescription, it must be assumed that those goods will be of concern to consumers, who are deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect where those goods affect their state of health, and that these consumers are less likely to confuse different versions of such goods. Furthermore, even assuming that a medical prescription is mandatory, consumers are likely to have a high degree of attentiveness upon prescription of the goods at issue, in the light of the fact that those goods are pharmaceutical products. Thus medicines, whether or not issued on prescription, can be regarded as receiving a heightened degree of attentiveness by consumers who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. [See T-331/09 Novartis, paras 21 and 26.]

The court stated that the relevant public has a high degree of attentiveness for these goods (prescription drugs).

However, some of the goods, regarding both marks, are daily consumer goods and the relevant public of these goods is composed of all consumers. The court stated that these goods cannot be regarded as receiving a high degree of attentiveness.

The court referred again to the case-law of GC. GC has ruled that if the goods at issue are targeted at both the general public and professionals (e.g. doctors), the relevant public consists of the general public because it is the one displaying the lower degree of attentiveness (See  T-220/09 ERGO, para. 21). [Compare with T-126/03 ALADIN, para. 81.]

Therefore, the relevant public in this case is composed of reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect average consumers. This kind of average consumer does not have a heightened degree of attentiveness regarding the goods in question. 

It was now time to compare the two marks. The court referred again to the case-law of CJ. CJ has ruled that

The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components. The perception of marks in the mind of the average consumer of the type of goods or services in question plays a decisive role in the global appreciation of the likelihood of confusion. The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details. [See C-251/95 SABEL, paras 22-23.]

Assessment of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark. On the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole. Although the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark may, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components, it is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element. [See C-20/14 BGW, paras 36-37.]

It must be stated that where a sign consists of both figurative and verbal elements, it does not automatically follow that it is the verbal element which must always be considered to be dominant. [See T-3/04 KINJI by SPA, para 45 and T-112/06 In­ter-Ikea, para 45.]

Where a trade mark is composed of verbal and figurative elements, the former are, in principle, more distinctive than the latter, because the average consumer will more readily refer to the goods in question by quoting their name than by describing the figurative element of the trade mark. [T-61/15 1&1 In­ter­net, para 61.]

The court stated that the applied mark CJ slightly resembles a four-leaf clover where the word element CJ is one leaf and the blue, orange and red figurative elements are the remaining leafs. Since the word element CJ is lacking any straightforward meaning or connection to the designated goods, it can be considered as having a normal degree of distinctiveness. According to the court, the word element is the most dominant and distinctive element of the mark. However, the figurative elements are not completely insignificant.

The court stated that the earlier EUTM CJ consists of blue letter C and grey letter J and two curves. The court stated that the word element CJ can be considered as having a normal degree of distinctiveness and it is also the most dominant and distinctive element of the mark. The court emphasized again that the figurative elements are not completely insignificant.

The letter combination CJ is included in both marks. The letters also have a similar font even though the letters have different colors. According to the court, there is a rather high degree of visual similarity because the letter element is the most dominant element in both marks, despite the figurative elements in the marks.

The court stated then that the marks are aurally identical.

The court continued and stated that the conceptual similarity cannot be compared because neither the letter combination CJ nor the figurative elements have any clear conceptual meaning.

The court stated that the conflicting marks have a high degree of similarity based on the assessment above. The court concluded that the relevant public finds the marks confusingly similar.

The action was dismissed.

The Market Court: SEN­SU­RA MIO Is Not Confusable with MIO for Goods In Class 10

The Market Court issued a trademark decision 430/16 on 8 July 2016. The court ruled that the applied international trademark SEN­SU­RA MIO is not confusable with the earlier European Union trademark MIO. Both marks are registered in class 10.

Background

Co­lop­last A/S (Coloplast) applied to register an international trademark SENSURA MIO in class 10 for os­to­my bags and parts and fit­ting the­re­for (not inc­lu­ded in ot­her clas­ses) and me­di­cal de­vi­ces, na­me­ly, re­cep­tac­les for the col­lec­tion of exc­re­tions from the hu­man bo­dy in re­la­tion to os­to­my. The mark is based on a Danish trademark registration on 14 August 2013.

The Patent and Registration Office (PRH) denied the registration (decision 10 June 2015) because the mark is liable to be confused with an earlier European Union trademark (EUTM) registration MIO (no. 8175473), registered on 5 April 2011. The EUTM MIO is registered in class 10 for in­fu­sion and in­jec­tion de­vi­ces for ad­mi­nis­te­ring drugs; parts and fit­tings for the afo­re­said goods.

Coloplast filed an appeal to the Market Court against the PRH's decision.

The Market Court issued its decision 430/16 on 8 July 2016.

The Market Court

According to section 14 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 9 of the Finnish Trademarks Act (7/1964), a trademark shall not be registered if it is liable to be confused with a European Union trademark within the meaning of section 57 that has been registered on the basis of an earlier application.

According to section 6 paragraph 1 of the Act, trade symbols shall be regarded under this Act as liable to cause confusion only if they apply to goods of identical or similar type.

The court referred to the established case-law and stated the following: 

In assessing the similarity of the goods or services concerned, all the relevant factors relating to those goods or services themselves should be taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their intended purpose and their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. The comparison of the goods or services should also focus on their distribution channels and their usual origin.

The applied mark SENSURA MIO covers the following goods in the class 10: os­to­my bags and parts and fit­ting the­re­for (not inc­lu­ded in ot­her clas­ses) and me­di­cal de­vi­ces, na­me­ly, re­cep­tac­les for the col­lec­tion of exc­re­tions from the hu­man bo­dy in re­la­tion to os­to­my. 

The earlier EUTM MIO is registered in class 10 for in­fu­sion and in­jec­tion de­vi­ces for ad­mi­nis­te­ring drugs; parts and fit­tings for the afo­re­said goods.

The court stated that the goods are medical apparatus or instruments. The goods are not in competition and their intended purpose is not the same. However, both goods are part of health care functions and in that sense the goods are similar and their usual origin and their distribution channels are similar. The court stated that the goods are, to some extent, similar.

The court assessed then the relevant public. The court referred to the case-law of the Court of Justice (CJ). CJ has ruled that:

For the purposes of that global appreciation, the average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer's level of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question. [See C-342/97 Lloyd, para 26.]

The court stated that the relevant public consists, on the one hand, of medical or health professionals. The other part of the relevant public, emphasized by the court, consists of consumers who are using ostomy bags and other accessories related to ostomy. The court stated that the attentiveness of these consumers is considerably higher.

It was now time to compare the two marks. The court referred again to the case-law of CJ. CJ has ruled that

The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components. The perception of marks in the mind of the average consumer of the type of goods or services in question plays a decisive role in the global appreciation of the likelihood of confusion. The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details. [See C-251/95 SABEL, paras 22-23.]

The applied mark SENSURA MIO consists of the words "sensura" and "mio". The court considered that the word "SENSURA" is the most dominant and distinctive element of the mark. However, the word "MIO" is not completely insignificant.

The earlier EUTM MIO consists of the word "mio" and, according to the court, the mark has a normal distinctiveness.

The two marks have a visual difference based on the amount of the words described above. Nevertheless, the court stated that the marks have, to some extent, a visual similarity.

The two marks have also an aural difference based on the amount of the words described above. The court considered that the relevant Finnish public is paying more attention on the beginning of the marks. Therefore, the word element "SENSURA" is the most dominant element when assessing the pronunciation of the applied mark SENSURA MIO. The court stated that there is a low degree of aural similarity.

The words "sensura" or "mio" do not have any clear meaning among the relevant Finnish public. The word "mio" is Italian. The court stated that the relevant Finnish public does not, per se, understand Italian. However, the relevant Finnish public might still understand the meaning of the word "mio" because it has similarities with the corresponding Swedish word "min" and the corresponding English word "mine". Therefore, there is a low degree of conceptual similarity.

Based on the assessment above, the court stated that the conflicting marks are, to some extent, similar.

It was now time to draw some conclusions. The court repeated that the goods are, to some extent, similar. The earlier EUTM MIO consists of the word "mio" and is thus wholly included in the applied mark SENSURA MIO. However, the word element SENSURA is the most dominant element of the applied mark SENSURA MIO. The court concluded that, after taking into account the differences and the high level of attention of the relevant public, the applied mark SENSURA MIO is not confusable with the EUTM MIO. 

The court reversed the PRH's decision and the case was sent back to PRH for the registration of the applied mark.

The Market Court: Domain Name Dispute and the Appellant's Allegedly Established Trademarks

The Market Court issued a domain name decision 418/16 on 1 July 2016. According to the court, the appellant, who was opposing a domain name registration, could not prove that its trademarks were evidently established at the time of the domain name application. In result, the revocation and transfer request was dismissed.

Background

The Finnish communications regulatory authority (FICORA) granted a domain name ppi­net.fi to a person X on 9 November 2013.

Te­lia­So­ne­ra Fin­land Oyj (TeliaSonera) requested FICORA to cancel the domain name and to transfer it to TeliaSonera. TeliaSonera argued that the domain name is a derivative of its established trademarks iNET KES­KUS­KA­TU, INET and PP.INET.FI.

FICORA dismissed the request on 18 December 2014. According to FICORA, the establishment of the marks is not evident. 

TeliaSonera filed an appeal to the Market Court against the FICORA's decision.

The Market Court issued its decision 418/16 on 1 July 2016.

The Market Court

According to section 4 paragraph 3 of Domain Name Act 228/2003 (amendments up to 397/2009 included), a domain name shall not be illegally based on a protected name or trademark owned by another party or on a natural person’s name.

According to section 3 sub-paragraph 3 of the Act, protected name or trademark means a name or trademark that has been entered into the trade register or into the registers of trademarks, associations, foundations, or political parties; or an established name, a secondary mark or trademark referred to in the Business Names Act (128/1979) or Trademarks Act (7/1964); or a name of a public body, unincorporated state enterprise, independent public corporation, public association, or diplomatic mission of a foreign state or their bodies.

According to section 12 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 4 of the Act, FICORA may revoke a domain name, if there are weighty reasons to suspect that the domain name is a derivative of a protected name or trademark or a derivative of a natural person’s name that has been obtained with the obvious intent of obtaining benefit or harming another, and the holder of the name or trademark requests that the name be revoked and the domain name holder has not presented an acceptable reason for its right within a period of two weeks.

According to section 12 paragraph 2 of the Act, FICORA may transfer a domain name that has been revoked by virtue of paragraph 1 (2–4) to a party that has requested the revocation.

The court referred to Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) ruling 2006:41, where SAC stated that the competence of FICORA is, regarding the section 12 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 4 of the Act, only limited to situations where it is evident that the domain name is an unlawful derivative of a protected trademark.

The court also referred to legal literature where it is stated that the establishment of the mark has to be evident. This requirement is justifiable because of the simplified procedure used in the assessment of the domain name applications.

The court had to assess whether the appellant's marks were evidently established at the time of the domain name application on 9 November 2013. If that was the case, the marks are then considered as protected trademarks and eligible for the protection provided in the section 12 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 4.

TeliaSonera argued that the mark iNET KES­KUS­KA­TU was introduced in 1994 and it was used for a long time on a website inet.fi. According to TeliaSonera, this website was one of the most popular and used websites in Finland in the late 1990's.

TeliaSonera argued also that the mark INET has been used actively for internet services since 1995. INET was the most popular home internet plan in Finland. TeliaSonera has also had some other services with the mark INET, such as INET voice chat and INET live.

TeliaSonera argued also that the mark PP.INET.FI has been widely used for email services since 1995 and there are still many active users of the email addresses @pp.inet.fi.

The court stated that the marks of the appellant were introduced in the 1990's and they have been widely used back then. However, the assessment here required evidence of the alleged establishment at the time of the domain name application on 9 November 2013. The court stated that the provided evidence is not able to prove that the appellant's marks were evidently established at the time of the domain name application. Therefore, the marks were not protected and there was no need to assess whether the domain name has been obtained with the obvious intent of obtaining benefit or harming the appellant.

The action was dismissed.

The court ordered the appellant to pay the defendant's legal fees, in total 3 441 euros.

The Market Court: FUSION (Figure) Is Confusable with FRESH FUSION for Cigarettes and Tobaccos

The Market Court issued a trademark decision 429/16 on 7 July 2016. The court ruled that the applied national trademark FUSION (figure) is confusable with the earlier international trademark registration FRESH FUSION. Both marks are for cigarettes, tobaccos and other smokers' articles.

Background

Reemts­ma Ci­ga­ret­ten­fab­ri­ken GmbH (Reemtsma) applied to register a figure mark FUSION in class 36 for cigarettes, tobaccos and other smokers' articles on 29 December 2014.

Application no. T201452598.

The Patent and Registration Office (PRH) denied the registration (decision 25 August 2015) because the mark is liable to be confused with an earlier international trademark registration FRESH FUSION (no. 1155884), registered on 11 February 2013. The mark FRESH FUSION is registered in class 34 for cigarettes, tobacco, tobacco products, lighters, matches and smokers' articles. 

Reemtsma filed an appeal to the Market Court against the PRH's decision.

The Market Court issued its decision 429/16 on 7 July 2016.

The Market Court

According to section 14 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 8 of the Finnish Trademarks Act (7/1964), a trademark shall not be registered if it is liable to be confused with a trademark protected by an international registration valid in Finland or the European Community that on the basis of this registration enjoys an earlier right in Finland or the European Community.

According to section 6 paragraph 1 of the Act, trade symbols shall be regarded under this Act as liable to cause confusion only if they apply to goods of identical or similar type.

The court referred to the established case-law and stated the following: 

There is a likelihood of confusion where the public can be mistaken as to the origin of the goods or services in question.

Accordingly, the risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings, constitutes a likelihood of confusion.

The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.

In assessing the similarity of the goods or services concerned, all the relevant factors relating to those goods or services themselves should be taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their intended purpose and their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. The comparison of the goods or services should also focus on their distribution channels and their usual origin.

The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components.

The more similar the goods or services covered and the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion.

The applied mark FUSION (figure) covers the following goods in the class 34: tobacco, whether manufactured or unmanfactured; smokers' articles; tobacco substitutes (not for medical purposes); cigarettes; cigarillos; hand-operated implements for rolling cigarettes; mouthpieces for cigarette holders; cigarette filters; cigarette paper; electronic cigarettes; liquids for use in electronic cigarettes.

The earlier mark FRESH FUSION is registered in class 34 for cigarettes; tobacco; tobacco products; lighters; matches; smokers' articles.

These goods are consequently considered identical.

The applied mark FUSION is a figure mark and it is written in capital letters. The mark has a rather usual font. The letters F and O are stylized. However, the figured elements are clearly secondary to the word "FUSION". 

The earlier mark consists of two words, "FRESH" and "FUSION". It is likely that the relevant Finnish public understands the meaning of the English word "fresh". According to the court, the word element "FRESH" describes the quality of the goods. Therefore, the word element "FUSION" is the most dominant and distinctive element of the mark.

The biggest visual and aural difference between the marks is the word "FRESH" in the earlier mark FRESH FUSION. However, as mentioned above, the word "FUSION" is the most dominant and distinctive element of that earlier mark. Therefore, the conflicting marks have a high degree of visual and aural similarity.

Both marks have the word "fusion". It is likely that the relevant Finnish public understands the meaning of the English word "fusion". The word "fusion" is the most dominant element of the mark FRESH FUSION. Therefore, there is a very high degree of conceptual similarity.

The conflicting marks have identical goods. Furthermore, the marks have a visual, aural and conceptual similarity. The court concluded that the applied mark FUSION (figure) is confusable with the earlier mark FRESH FUSION.  

The action was dismissed.

Big Finnish Music Artists Are Abandoning Copyright Society TEOSTO

The country's largest newspaper Helsingin Sanomat had an article about music artists and copyright collecting societies on 16 July 2016.

The article explained how big Finnish music artists are abandoning the Finnish copyright society TEOSTO. The problem lies within the taxation and the fact that royalty payments are always personal income if you are an artist. It is not possible to channel the royalty payments into a company.

Taxation issues...
Image courtesy of stevepb at Pixabay.com

The newspaper wrote that the Finnish band Sunrise Avenue has been a member of STIM, a collecting society in Sweden, since 2007. The lead singer of the band, Samu Haber, told that the band was offered a significant publishing agreement back in 2007. The publisher did not want to sign the contract with TEOSTO so the band had to choose STIM.

TEOSTO is not pleased with the current situation. “We fear that we lose all the big Finnish artists”, says Teosto CEO Katri Sipilä. According to Sipilä, there are also many Finnish songwriters who are joining STIM.

The issue is mentioned in the current government programme. TEOSTO is hoping that the problem could be fixed.

---

SOURCE: Nissinen, Hannes (2016, July 16). Isot suomalaiset yhtyeet jättäneet Teoston – Samu Haber: ”En usko, että Suomessa on yhtään kansainvälisen tason artistia, joka olisi Teoston jäsen”. Helsingin Sanomat. [online] Available at: http://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/a1468636274215 [Accessed 18 July. 2016].

The Finnish Trademarks Act Will Be Revised

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment has appointed a working group to revise the current Trademarks Act (7/1964). The Ministry gave its decision on 22 June 2016.

This will be an overall reform that takes care of the implementation of the revised EU Trademark Directive 2015/2436 and the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks. This revision will also bring some changes to the Trade Names Act (128/1979).

The term of operation for the working group is between 15 August 2016 and 15 December 2017. The group will prepare a Government Proposal and the Proposal will be handed to the Parliament in Autumn 2018.

The Market Court Ordered ISPs to Give Up Personal Details of Internet Subscribers

The Market Court issued three copyright decisions, 423/16, 424/16 and 425/16, on 7 July 2016. In the decisions, the court ordered the internet service providers TeliaSonera, DNA and Elisa to give up the personal details of thousands of IP addresses (in total 4 871 IP addresses) because copyrighted works were made available to the public to a significant extent from those IP addresses. The infringing acts occurred in a BitTorrent peer-to-peer network.

Background

Crys­ta­lis En­ter­tain­ment UG is a rightsholder of the tv-shows Ash vs Evil Dead, Black Sails, Power and Spartacus.

According to the rightsholder, several Finnish internet subscribers have, unauthorised by the author, made the mentioned tv-shows available to the public to a significant extent. These infringing acts have occurred in a BitTorrent peer-to-peer network.

The IP addresses of the internet subscribers were logged by a technology company that had monitored the BitTorrent traffic. In March 2016, the rightsholder requested the Market Court to order the relevant internet service providers (ISP), namely TeliaSonera, DNA and Elisa, to give up the personal details of the internet subscribers pursuant to section 60a of the Finnish Copyright Act (404/1961).

The Market Court issued its decisions 423/16, 424/16 and 425/16 on 7 July 2016.

The Market Court

According to section 60a of the Act: 

In individual cases, notwithstanding confidentiality provisions, an author or his representative shall be entitled, by the order of the court of justice, to obtain contact information from the maintainer of a transmitter, server or a similar device or other service provider acting as an intermediary about a tele-subscriber who, unauthorised by the author, makes material protected by copyright available to the public to a significant extent in terms of the protection of the author's rights. The information shall be supplied without undue delay.

The author or his representative who has obtained contact information referred to in subsection 1 above shall be governed by the provisions of the Information Society Code (917/2014) pertaining to confidentiality and the protection of privacy in communications, the handling of messages and identification data, information security, guidance and supervision, coercive measures and sanctions. 

An author or his representative referred to in this section shall defray the costs incurring from the enforcement of an order to supply information and recompense the maintainer of the transmitter, server or other similar device or other service provider acting as an intermediary for possible damage. 

The court stated that the section 60a of the Act must be interpreted in accordance with the Directives 2001/29/EC (The Copyright Directive), 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy Directive) and 2004/48/EC (Enforcement Directive).

The court referred to Court of Justice (CJ) decisions C-275/06 Pro­mu­si­cae and C-461/10 Bon­nier Au­dio, where CJ has ruled that:

ePrivacy Directive does not preclude the possibility for the Member States of laying down an obligation to disclose personal data in the context of civil proceedings.[See C-275/06 Pro­mu­si­cae, paras 54-55 and C-461/10 Bon­nier Au­dio, paras 54-55.]

Member States must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with those directives but also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of them which would be in conflict with those fundamental rights or with the other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality. [See C-275/06 Pro­mu­si­cae, paras 68-70 and C-461/10 Bon­nier Au­dio, paras 59-61.]

After clarifying the legal basis, the court gave a thorough explanation of the BitTorrent protocol. The court stated that, inter alia, a group of computers downloading and uploading the same content is called a swarm. The computers in the swarm are transferring data between each other. A content shared in a swarm is infringing the author's exclusive right to control a work by making it available to the public. The conduct is infringing even if there are only few computers in the swarm. However, an individual infringement does not automatically mean that the infringer has made copyrighted material available to the public to a significant extent. The court stated that the assessment of the significant extent must be based on an overall consideration of the case. The amount of the users in the swarm is not, per se, decisive. One has to also take into account, for example, the possible harm caused by the entitlement to obtain personal details.

All the tv-shows were shared in multiple swarms. The court paid attention to the total size of the swarms, not only to the amount of the users that were connected with the infringer's IP address. The total size of the swarms regarding each tv-show was at least thousands of users during the analysed 24 hours. 

The court stated that the total size of the swarms has a significance from the rightsholder's point of view. Even though the significant extent is assessed based on the amount shared by an individual user, one can not ignore the total size of the swarms involved in the distribution. The user can not choose the swarm and the amount of the users in each swarm is determined randomly. The log information shows that there has been a considerable demand for the works.

The court stated that the entitlement to obtain personal details is important in order to examine the infringement and to target the infringer. The sharing described above is so significant that the rightsholder needs to have a possibility to intervene the sharing even though it interferes with the protection of privacy. The court emphasized that if the rightsholder is entitled to obtain personal details, it is governed by the provisions regarding confidentiality and the protection of privacy in communications, the handling of messages and identification data and information security. Therefore, the reasons supporting the entitlement to obtain personal details are more significant than the harm caused to the internet subscriber. 

The court concluded that copyrighted works were made available to the public to a significant extent from the listed IP addresses. The court ordered the relevant ISPs to give up the personal details of the internet subscribers.  

Is this swarm meeting the threshold of significant extent?
Image courtesy of PixelAnarchy at Pixabay.com

The rightsholder also tried to get the personal details of the person who receives the invoices regarding the internet subscription. The court rejected this.

The court ordered also the rightsholder to defray the costs incurring from the enforcement of an order to supply information and to recompense possible damage. 

Comments:

It seems that these internet subscribers will soon receive a settlement letter from the rightsholder. You can read more about the rightsholders' settlement letters here and here. 

The Market Court: Domain Name Was Transferred Without the Consent of the Holder

The Market Court issued a domain name decision 383/16 on 27 June 2016. According to the court, there were weighty reasons to suspect that the domain name was transferred to another party without the consent of the holder of the domain name and the transferee did not present an acceptable reason for its right. The court stated that the mere sending of a transfer key in an email is not, per se, expressing the consent of the domain name holder.

Background

The Finnish communications regulatory authority (FICORA) granted a domain name suu­rel­la­sy­da­mel­la.fi to the Federation of Evangelical Lutheran Parishes in Tampere (The Federation of Parishes) on 7 September 2005. The website contains information about volunteer work in the Federation of Parishes. The Federation of Parishes has also a trademark "Suurella Sydämellä" ("With a Big Heart" in English), registered in 2011.

Agile Design Oy (Agile) has, based on a contract between it and the Federation of Parishes, taken care of the maintenance issues regarding the domain name.

In September 2013, FICORA let the Federation of Parishes to know that some problems had occurred with the name servers of the domain name. The Federation of Parishes instructed Agile to take care of these problems. On 16 September 2013, the Federation of Parishes sent an email to Agile and the email included, inter alia, a transfer key. [A fi-domain name is transferred to a new holder by using a transfer key.]

Agile used the transfer key and the domain name was transferred to it on 12 October 2013.

The Federation of Parishes requested FICORA to cancel the domain name and to transfer it back to the Federation of Parishes. The Federation of Parishes argued that the domain name was transferred to Agile without the consent of the Federation of Parishes. Agile was, according to the Federation of Parishes, only allowed to fix the occurred problems. FICORA dismissed the request on 15 June 2015.

The Federation of Parishes filed an appeal to the Market Court against the FICORA's decision. 

The Market Court issued its decision 383/16 on 27 June 2016.

The Market Court

According to section 8 paragraph 2 of Domain Name Act 228/2003 (amendments up to 397/2009 included), a domain name may be transferred to another party. The transfer shall be effective, when the transferee has made an application for the transfer in accordance with section 4 a and the holder of the domain name has consented to the transfer. [A transfer key is expressing the consent.]

According to section 12 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 2 of the Act, FICORA may revoke a domain name, if there are weighty reasons to suspect that the domain name has been transferred to another party without the consent of the holder of the domain name, protected name or trademark, and the holder requests that the name be revoked, and the transferee has not presented an acceptable reason for its right within a period of two weeks. According to section 12 paragraph 2 of the Act, FICORA may transfer a domain name that has been revoked by virtue of paragraph 1 (2–4) to a party that has requested the revocation.

The Federation of Parishes provided evidence of the subcontract that existed between it and Agile. According to that evidence, Agile is taking care of the maintenance issues regarding the domain name. The court stated that there is a weighty reason to suspect that the domain name suu­rel­la­sy­da­mel­la.fi was transferred to Agile without the consent of the Federation of Parishes.

The court had to assess next whether Agile has presented an acceptable reason for its right.

Agile argued that the parties had conversations about the transfer and that the transfer was consensual. According to Agile, it was not a mistake that the Federation of Parishes gave the transfer key via email. The chief executive officer (CEO) of Agile told that he and a project leader B from the Federation of Parishes had conversations about the transfer during the year 2013 and it was clear to both parties that the domain name should belong to Agile. The CEO A told also that Agile could have fixed all the server problems without the transfer key and therefore the sole purpose of the transfer key was to transfer the domain name to Agile.

The project leader B confirmed that the parties had several conversations about the domain name during the year 2013. However, no conversations were held regarding the transfer of the domain name. B or the Chief information officer C, who sent the transfer key to B, did not even have the powers to authorize the transfer on behalf of the Federation of Parishes. B understood later that the transfer key was not needed in order to fix occurred problems regarding the name servers.

The Chief information officer C confirmed the statements presented by B.

The court stated that Agile has not provided any documentary evidence regarding the transfer. Agile has only referred to the consensus between the parties in the conversations in 2013. Agile could not clearly specify the moment when this consensus was reached. The statements of the parties are contradictory. Nothing, apart from the statement made by A, supports the claim that the domain name was transferred with the consent of the Federation of Parishes.

If it's not in a contract, it didn't happen!
Image courtesy of edar at Pixabay.com

The court stated that the sole purpose of a transfer key is to transfer a domain name from one registrar to another. The sending of the transfer key was not needed here in order to fix the problems regarding the name servers. However, this does not mean that the sole announcement of the transfer key to a party, who is responsible of taking care of the maintenance issues regarding the domain name, would authorize the party to transfer the domain name. 

The court concluded that Agile has not presented an acceptable reason for its right.

The court reversed the earlier decision of FICORA and the case was sent back to FICORA for the revocation and the transfer of the domain name.

The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's legal fees, in total 22 374,36 euros plus legal interest.

The Market Court: EUTM HANGOVER is Descriptive for Pizzas

The Market Court declared invalid the registered European Union trademark HANGOVER pursuant to Article 7(1)(b-c) of the Community trademark Regulation No 207/2009 in its decision 375/16 on 17 June 2016. According to the court, the trademark is descriptive for the goods in question (class 30 for Pizzas) and therefore also devoid of any distinctive character.

After this the proprietor tried to argue that the trademark has become established, but the court did not find any evidence to support the claim and also dismissed the infringement claim (decision 376/15 on 17 June 2016).

Background

CPR Con­sep­tor Oy (CPR) is the holder of a registered European Union trademark (EUTM) no. 012274734 HAN­GO­VER (word), registered on 18 March 2014. The EUTM is registered in class 30 for Pizzas.

CPR has been using the word "HAN­GO­VER" as a pizza name since 1996. According to the company, it has 12 franchised restaurants all over Finland. Between 2005 and 2014 it has sold approximately 200 000 "HANGOVER" pizzas. According to CPR's website, the pizza contains spicy salsa sauce, mozzarella, salami, crispy bacon, pickled cucumber and jalapeños.

CPR was not happy that some of its competitors were using names "Hangover" and "Hangover Express" for their pizzas. In 2015, CPR launched trademark infringement proceedings against the competitors.

The competitors filed a counterclaim, asserting that the plaintiff’s trademark registration shall be declared invalid pursuant to Article 7(1)(b-d) and Article 52(1)(b) or it shall be declared to be revoked pursuant to Article 51(1)(b) of the Community trademark Regulation No 207/2009.

There is nothing a good pizza can't cure!
Image courtesy of jarmoluk at Pixabay.com

The Market Court

First, the court assessed the invalidity claim (decision 375/16, issued on 17 June 2016).

According to Article 51(1)(a) of the Regulation:

1. A Community trade mark shall be declared invalid on application to the Office or on the basis of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings:  

a) where the Community trade mark has been registered contrary to the provisions of Article 7.

The competitors argued that the EUTM has been registered contrary to Article 7(1)(b-d). According to Article 7(1)(b-d) of the Regulation:

1. The following shall not be registered:  

(b) trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character;
(c) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service;
(d) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade.

According to Article 7(2) of the Regulation, paragraph 1 shall apply notwithstanding that the grounds of non-registrability obtain in only part of the Community.

The court referred to the case-law of the Court of Justice (CJ) and the General Court (GC):

The Article 7(1)(c) prevents the signs or indications referred to therein from being reserved to one undertaking alone because they have been registered as trade marks. That provision thus pursues an aim in the public interest, which requires that such signs or indications may be freely used by all. [See Joined Cases C-108/97, C-109/97 Wind­sur­fing Chiem­see, para 25 and T-348/02 Quick, para 27.]

Furthermore the signs referred to by Article 7(1)(c) are signs regarded as incapable of performing the essential function of a trade mark, namely that of identifying the commercial origin of the goods or services, thus enabling the consumer who acquired the product or service to repeat the experience, if it proves to be positive, or to avoid it, if it proves to be negative, on the occasion of a subsequent acquisition.[See T-219/00 Ellos, para 28.]

The signs and indications referred to in Article 7(1)(c) are those which may serve in normal usage from the point of view of the target public to designate, either directly or by reference to one of their essential characteristics, the goods or service in respect of which registration is sought. [See T-19/04 Metso Paper Automation, para 24 and C-383/99 P Procter & Gamble, para 39.]

It follows that, for a sign to be caught by the prohibition set out in that provision, there must be a sufficiently direct and specific relationship between the sign and the goods and services in question to enable the public concerned immediately to perceive, without further thought, a description of the goods and services in question or one of their characteristics. [See T-19/04 Metso Paper Automation, para 25.]

In order for OHIM to refuse to register a trade mark under Article 7(1)(c), it is not necessary that the signs and indications composing the mark that are referred to in that article actually be in use at the time of the application for registration in a way that is descriptive of goods or services such as those in relation to which the application is filed, or of characteristics of those goods or services. It is sufficient, as the wording of that provision itself indicates, that such signs and indications could be used for such purposes. A sign must therefore be refused registration under that provision if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods or services concerned. [See C-191/01 P Wrigley, para 32.]

The distinctiveness of a trade mark must be assessed, first, in relation to the goods or services in respect of which registration of the sign has been requested and, second, in relation to the perception of the section of the public targeted, which is composed of the consumers of those products or services. [See T-348/02 Quick, para 29.]

In that regard, although it is clear from Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation that each of the grounds for refusal listed in that provision is independent of the others and calls for separate examination, there is a clear overlap between the scope of the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b), (c) and (d) of Article 7(1). In particular, a word mark which is descriptive of characteristics of goods or services for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) is, on that account, necessarily devoid of any distinctive character with regard to the same goods or services within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c). [See C-265/00 Campina Melkunie, paras 18-19, C-363/99 Koninklijke KPN Nederland, paras 67 and 86 and T-322/03 Telefon & Buch, para 111,]

The court stated that the word "hangover" ("krapula" in Finnish) refers to the condition following an abundant use of alcoholic beverages. Neither of the parties argued that the word would have some other generally known meanings.

The court considered that the relevant public, average consumers, consists of English speaking audience who understands the meaning of the word. The court stated that the Finnish consumers are part of that audience.

The competitors claimed that, inter alia, the EUTM HANGOVER designates the kind or at least one of the intended purposes of the goods [Article 7(1)(c)]. According to the companies, the relevant public understands pizza as a typical hangover food and hangover remedy.

The competitors provided also evidence of Google search results for a word "krapularuoka" ("hangover food" in English). Also a survey carried out by a Finnish newspaper in 2011 revealed that 33 percent of the 18 000 respondents think that pizza is the best hangover food. The competitors provided also evidence of several online discussion board and blog posts that are praising pizza as a hangover food or provide different recipes named, inter alia, "Hangover-pizza" or "Krapulapizza". Furthermore, the competitors referred to an interview (dated April 2013) with an executive from an online pizza ordering service. According to this executive, pizza is a hangover remedy for Finns and most orders occur immediately after holidays and on Sundays.

According to the court, the relevant Finnish public understands that the word "krapularuoka" refers to a food that people are eating, inter alia, as a remedy to ease the condition they have after an abundant use of alcoholic beverages. The court stated that, according to the relevant public, pizza is one of, if not the most, common hangover foods. The court continued and stated that this understanding has existed already before the registration of the EUTM HANGOVER.

The court referred again to CJ decision C-191/01 P Wrigley where CJ ruled that a sign must be refused if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods or services concerned.

Therefore, the court stated that the mark HANGOVER has been descriptive for the goods already at the time of the registration and is thus contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of the Regulation. The mark is also devoid of any distinctive character with regard to the same goods and therefore also contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation.

Since the request was found successful under Article 7(1)(b-c) of the Regulation it was not necessary to examine whether the additional invoked grounds for invalidation and revocation would apply.

The decision was not unanimous. One judge wrote a dissenting opinion. According to this judge, a hangover or eating pizza while having a hangover cannot be regarded as designating the characteristics of pizzas. The judge stated that, inter alia, pizza is just one of the salty and greasy foods that the people who are suffering from a hangover might find tempting. The judge concluded that the connection between the mark HANGOVER and pizzas is so vague that the EUTM HANGOVER does not go beyond the acceptable limits of suggestion. The mark is not devoid of any distinctive character either. The judge also dismissed the other invoked grounds for invalidation and revocation.

---

So the EUTM HANGOVER was declared invalid pursuant to Article 7(1)(c). 

CPR still argued that the mark has been established through use. According to section 2 paragraph 1 of the Finnish Trademarks Act (7/1964), exclusive rights in a trademark may be acquired, even without registration, after the mark has become established. According to section 2 paragraph 3 of the Act, a trade symbol shall be considered established if it has become generally known in the appropriate business or consumer circles in Finland as a symbol specific to its proprietor's goods.

The court assessed the establishment and a possible infringement in a decision 376/15, issued on 17 June 2016.

The chief executive officer (CEO) of CPR stated that the company has sold the "Hangover" pizzas in its restaurants since 1996. The company has 12 franchised restaurants all over Finland. According to the CEO, the company is selling approximately 100 000 - 200 000 "Hangover" pizzas per year. [This is contradicting the numbers CPR used in the claim. In the claim the company mentioned that it has sold, between the years 2005 and 2014, altogether 200 000 "Hangover" pizzas. The other option is that there is a typo in the decision.]

A witness G has told the court that he/she has known one of the franchised restaurants and its "Hangover" pizzas since the end of 1990s.

CPR also referred to its physical menus from the year 1996 and 2002 and menus that have been available on its website in 2003, 2009 and 2014. The Hangover pizza has been mentioned in all those menus.

CPR referred also to four different magazine or newspaper articles (dated 2006, 2007 and 2008) in which the Hangover pizza is mentioned. 

The court stated that the company has proved how it has sold the pizza since 1996, how the pizza has been one of its most popular products and how the amount of franchised restaurants has grown during the years.

However, besides the sales figures, the company has not, according to the court, provided any evidence regarding the market share, the size of the investments made by the undertaking in promoting the mark or how reputed the mark is among the appropriate business or consumer circles in Finland.

The court continued and stated that one of the referred articles does not even mention the trademark HANGOVER or a pizza named Hangover. The other three articles mention the name but the company has not provided any information of the distribution figures. Furthermore, the content of the articles is quite insignificant. The court was not able to draw any conclusions regarding the reputation of the mark. 

Therefore, the trademark has not become established.

The court dismissed the infringement claim.