Did the Court of Justice of the European Union Solve the Puzzle by Declaring the Rubik’s Cube Trademark Invalid?

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (12) ◽  
pp. 1217-1233
Author(s):  
Borbála Lili Kováts
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Rubik's Cube ◽  
Rubik’S Cube ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In 1995, the patent protection for the internationally famous Rubik’s Cube expired. Ernő Rubik, the Hungarian inventor of the three-dimensional puzzle, had to find an alternative way to maintain his monopoly on the market and thus had the shape of the Cube registered as a 3D Community trademark in 1996. However, the idea of perpetuating the exclusive rights related to the Rubik’s Cube only proved to be successful for ten years, as in 2006 Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG, a German competitor of Rubik, filed an application for declaration of invalidity against the 3D Rubik’s Cube trademark. The application was based on the lack of distinctive character, descriptiveness and functionality of the 3D trademark. This was rejected by OHIM. The invalidity case ended up before the Court of Justice of the European Union, upon the appeal of the German competitor. The Court found that the Rubik’s Cube trademarks should have been declared invalid, and transferred the case back to OHIM, which then had to bring a new decision that was in line with the interpretation of the CJEU. The study analyses the two rounds of invalidity proceedings, the key issues which emerged throughout the case, the interpretation of functionality by OHIM and the CJEU, and the legal background and the prospect for 3D shape marks in the EU.

scholarly journals The Notion of the European Union Trademark

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-31
Author(s):  
Jarmila Lazíková
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe EU trademark law has recorded the important changes in the last years. The Community trademark in the past and the EU trademark at the present have become very popular legal measures not only in the EU Member States but also in the third countries. Its preferences are increasing year to year. The EU trademark may consist of a sign that fulfils two main attributes. Firstly, there is a distinctive character. Secondly, there is a capability of being represented on the Register of the EU trademarks. The second attribute is new and replaced the previous attribute - capability of being represented graphically. The interpretation of the above mentioned attributes is not possible without the judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is necessary to take into account the kind of trademark, list of the goods and services, which should be signed by the trademark, and its perception by the public. The paper includes the main judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union related to the interpretation of the sign that may be registered as the EU trademark. They are very helpful in the application practice of the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the national offices of the intellectual property as well.

scholarly journals Protection of the Rights of Subjects of Scientific and Technological Activity: Oracle v. Google

Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 138-147
Author(s):  
A. G. Barabashev ◽  
A. M. Kamalyan ◽  
D. V. Ponomareva
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Program Code ◽  
Software Developers ◽  
Intellectual Activity ◽  
Technological Activity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

The focus of this paper is one of the key cases in the field of protection of the results of intellectual activity considered by foreign courts in recent years — the «Oracle v. Google» case. The authors analyze the background of the case, focus on the main conclusions made by the American court in the course of the dispute. Particular attention is given to the protection of copyright in relation to the lines of code, as well as aspects of patent protection. The authors assess the conclusions of «American Themis» and forecast the impact of this decision on the protection of the rights of subjects of scientific and technological activity. In the context of Oracle v. Google the authors compare the practice of the Court of Justice of the EU as a judicial institution of the European Union. In particular, following the case of SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd, which is under consideration in the Court of the EU, the authors compare the American and European approaches to the problem of protection of the program code by legal means. In conclusion, the authors attempt to identify the possible risks for the subjects of scientific and technological activities (primarily for software developers) inherent in the decision in the case of Oracle v Google.

Institutional organisation of the European Union in the time of crisis – horizontal division of power and functions

2016 ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Monika Poboży
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
European Council ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Strong Position ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Eu

The article poses a question about the existence of the rule of separation of powers in the EU institutional system, as it is suggested by the wording of the treaties. The analysis led to the conclusion, that in the EU institutional system there are three separated functions (powers) assigned to different institutions. The Council and the European Parliament are legislative powers, the Commission and the European Council create a “divided executive”. The Court of Justice is a judicial power. The above mentioned institutions gained strong position within their main functions (legislative, executive, judicial), but the proper mechanisms of checks and balances have not been developed, especially in the relations between legislative and executive power. These powers do not limit one another in the EU system. In the EU there are therefore three separated but arbitrary powers – because they do not limit and balance one another, and are not fully controlled by the member states.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

scholarly journals Has the Action for Failure to Act in the European Union Lost its Purpose?

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Daukšienė ◽  
Arvydas Budnikas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Eu

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution’s express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.

scholarly journals The European Union and WTO law: a nexus of reactive, coactive, and proactive approaches

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTONIS ANTONIADIS
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Comprehensive View ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Community Legal Order ◽  
The Eu

Ranging from the denial of direct effect to WTO law by the Court of Justice to a WTO-friendly legislative culture currently booming in the EU's political institutions, different approaches towards WTO law have been adopted within the EU. This article classifies the different approaches into reactive, coactive, and proactive by drawing on their common characteristics. The principal aim is to explore the considerations shaping the development of the different approaches and to argue that these stem from the interaction between the judiciary and the legislature. In doing so, this article purports to provide a comprehensive view of the application of WTO law within the Community legal order.

Legal conflict between the EU and the republic of Poland regarding polish judicial reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Yakovyuk ◽  
Suzanna Asiryan ◽  
Anastasiya Lazurenko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

Problem setting. On October 7, 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland ruled in favor of Polish law over European Union law, which in the long run may violate the principles according to which the Union operates and the rights enjoyed by citizens of the state. Such a precedent can further serve as a basis for identical decisions of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction of those states that have problems in fulfilling their obligations in the European community. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The problems of the functioning of the bodies of the European Union, the implementation of their decisions and the general status in EU law are widely studied in national science. In particular, many scholars have studied the legal nature of the EU, including: TM Anakina, VI Muravyov, NM Ushakov, A. Ya. Kapustina, NA Korolyova, Yu. Yumashev, BN Topornin, OYa Tragniuk, SS Seliverstov, IV Yakovyuk and others. Target of research is to establish the foundations of EU law in the functioning of Union bodies, especially the Court, as well as to determine the hierarchy of national law and EU law. Article’s main body. Over the years, the Court has, within its jurisdiction, issued a large number of judgments which have become the source of the Union’s Constituent Treaties and of EU law in general. Over the last two decades, the powers of the Court of Justice have changed significantly. In particular, this is due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which amended the EU’s founding treaties on the powers of the Court, then the reform of the European Court took place in 2015-2016, which concerned a change in the organizational structure of the Court. Despite the generally well-established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unification of the observance by the Member States of the basic principles of the European Union, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland adopted a decision on 7 October. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Polish authorities found themselves in a situation that significantly complicated its internal and external situation. The way out of which requires answers to fundamental questions about the legal nature of the EU. Undoubtedly, this is an issue not only between Poland and the EU, but also between other member states.

The Oxford Encyclopedia of European Union Politics

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Integration Process ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Energy Community ◽  
Vital Resource ◽  
The Eu

This encyclopedia offers the most comprehensive and up-to-date resource on the European integration process. Under the editorial directorship of Finn Laursen and associate editors Derek Beach, Roberto Domínguez, Sung-Hoon Park, Sophie Vanhoonacker, and Amy Verdun, the publication brings together peer-reviewed contributions by leading researchers on the European Union as a global actor. Topics include the basic treaties, institutions and policies of the European Union and the previous European Communities, the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community, and the European Atomic Energy Community. It also includes articles on the various conceptual frameworks and theories that have been developed by political scientists to guide research into the integration process and the policy- and decision-making processes with a focus on the roles of the different institutions, the European Council, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice of the EU. Additionally, the publication includes articles on the member states as well as external relations and foreign policies of the EU. As a result, the Oxford Encyclopedia of European Union Politics is a vital resource for students, scholars, and policymakers.

OPINION 2/15 OF THE CJEU: DELINEATING THE SCOPE OF THE NEW EU COMPETENCE IN FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Rumiana Yotova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

ON 16 May 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its Opinion 2/15 concerning the competence of the EU to conclude the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore (EUSFTA) (ECLI:EU:C:2017:376). The Opinion was requested by the Commission which argued, with the support of the European Parliament (EP), that the EU had exclusive competence to conclude the EUSFTA. The Council and 25 of the Member States countered that the EUSFTA should be concluded as a mixed agreement – that is, by the EU and each of its members – because some of its provisions fell under the shared competence of the organisation or the competence of the Member States alone.

scholarly journals Support Schemes in Renewable Energy: Commentary to Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017, ENEA S.A. v. Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-183
Author(s):  
Nevin Alija
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Renewable Energy ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Environmentally Friendly ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Financial Penalty ◽  
The Eu

In its September 13th 2017 decision,1 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided on a request for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court of Poland (Sąd Najwyższy) in proceedings between ENEA S.A. (ENEA) and the president of the Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki (Office for the regulation of energy, URE) on the imposition by the latter of a financial penalty on ENEA for breach of its obligation to supply electricity produced by cogeneration. The judgment of the Court of Justice follows many decisions of the European Commission and judgments of the EU courts assessing the involvement of State resources in support schemes in energy, particularly with the aim of switching towards more environmentally friendly sources. This case reaffirms that support schemes may, in certain circumstances, fall outside the scope of the EU State aid rules.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document