On 19.11.2021, the Austrian Parliament took one of the last steps necessary for implementing the EU-wide unitary patent and opening the Unified Patent Court. The Austrian Parliament approved the “Protocol to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court on provisional application”, which enables the establishment of the Unified Patent Court. The Parliament approved the treaty on 2.12.2021 and the President of Austria could sign it into law before Christmas. Ratification by Austria would fulfill the required number of 13 ratifications for implementation and the final preparations could begin. Now, for example, competent judges will be appointed and the IT system will be set up. This preparatory phase will take at least eight months but may also take longer. Optimistically, the Unified Patent Court could open its doors as early as the second half of 2022.Continue reading
Parallel to the trademark system, there is an independent and far-reaching protection for protected geographical indications (hereinafter PGI) and protected designations of origin (hereinafter PDO). This is a separate category of protection rights (sui generis), based on an EU regulation, the enforcement of which in Austria is embedded in the Trademark Protection Act.Continue reading
The IP-Team at Gassauer-Fleissner has contributed the Austrian Chapter on design rights in the International Comparative Legal Guide by glg. Our guide provides a concise overview of the registration and the enforcement of design rights in Austrian and can be accessed here. Design rights protect the visual or in some cases tactile elements of products that are not purely utilitarian. In praxis, their importance is sometimes overlooked and our guide aims at conveying their advantages and limitations.Continue reading
Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) effectively extend the protection afforded by patents for medicinal products by up to 5 years. This compensates for disadvantages caused by long approval processes: Generally, years pass between a patent application for a new active ingredient and the approval of a drug. Without an extension, the actual patent protection would therefore be reduced so that the time to recoup investments in research might be insufficient.Continue reading
First application of the Glawischnig-Piesczek CJEU decision
As reported, the CJEU clarified in the Glawischnig-Piesczek decision (C-18/18) the possible scope of injunctions against host providers such as Facebook. Following this decision courts may order the deletion not only of the specific infringing post but also of all information with equivalent meaning, even if it originates from other users.
In a new and unrelated case (4 Ob 36/20b), the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) applied these principles for the first time and issued a remarkably broad injunction. The Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF) acted as plaintiff against defendant Facebook. The dispute concerned the following picture of an ORF news anchor, to which an Austrian politician had added a text translating to: “There is a place where lies become news. This is the ORF”:Continue reading
The renowned international magazine “Managing Intellectual Property” annually presents the EMEA Awards in London, which recognize the best European intellectual property firms.
At the ceromony in London on March 5, 2020, Gassauer-Fleissner Attorneys at Law received the award for the best Austrian law firm in the “Patent Contentious” field. The IP-Team was also nominated for top Austrian firm in the categories Trademark Contentious and Copyright & Design.
The United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020. What happens now to your EU trade mark(s) (“EUTM”)? Are they still protected in the UK? Do you have to register a new trade mark? This article provides an overview.Continue reading
Preliminary injunctions (PIs) allow rapid and effective action against infringements of intellectual property rights. To this end, the procedural rights of the parties are restricted and the evidence requirements are lowered. However, under the Austrian legal systems these advantages come with a trade-off: In subsequent main proceedings the PI is reviewed and if it turns out that the PI was wrongly granted, the rights holder must indemnify, irrespective of fault, any damage that the alleged infringer has suffered through the unjustified PI. This system, which can also be found in other European countries, is now called into question by the CJEU decision Bayer Pharma v. Richter Gedeon and Exeltis, Case No. C-688/17.Continue reading
Due to the borderless nature of the Internet, it is often a hard question in which country right holders may file an action against online IP infringements. Concerning online infringement of EU trade marks, the CJEUhas now created (some) clarity in AMS Neve v. Heritage – C-172/18. Trade mark holders may sue not only in the infringer’s home country but also in the country to which the infringing offers for sale and advertising are directed. This results from Art 125 (5) UMV (formerly Art 97 (5) CTMR).Continue reading