Varemærkeret

Marken stellen wirtschaftlich bedeutende Rechte dar, deren Wert häufig im Wege der Lizenzierung monetarisiert wird. Aufgrund der Zugriffsmöglichkeit in der Zwangsvollstreckung ist die Marke auch interessant für Gläubiger des Markeninhabers. Die Lizenzierung der Marke durch den Markeninhaber sowie der Zugriff auf die Marke durch dessen Gläubiger in der Zwangsvollstreckung können aufeinandertreffen. Geht eine bereits lizenzierte Marke auf einen neuen Inhaber über, greift der sog. Sukzessionsschutzes des Lizenznehmers, § 30 Abs. 5 MarkenG. Die Vorschrift regelt, dass eine vorher erteilte Lizenz von einem Rechtsübergang nicht ¿berührt" wird. Dies gilt auch für einen Rechtsübergang im Rahmen der Zwangsvollstreckung. Die Autorin untersucht welche Rechtswirkungen daraus im Einzelnen folgen.

This book provides a comprehensive overview of European Patent Law. It presents a critical analysis of the European patent law system and the proposed changes to it. The book explores the strengths and weaknesses of the European Patent Convention, and the interaction between the national and the European level, as well as across borders.

On June 1, the Unified Patent Court became operational and unitary patents are now available for filing.This book provides an overview of the unitary patent system and offers additional strategic considerations, especially regarding the questions:Should an "opt-out" be filed for existing European patents or not?Should the Unified Patent Court be invoked?How should proceedings before the Unified Patent Court be approached?How do I defend myself if I am attacked?It is a valuable aid for all those active in the field of patent protection in Europe, since, unlike a commentary, it provides comprehensive and concrete considerations from a strategic point of view and derives concrete proposals for action from them.In addition, several chapters of the book are devoted to the enforcement of judgments of the Unified Patent Court as well as to the comparison between the Unified Patent Court and the patent jurisdiction of the member states. For this purpose, well-known guest authors could be won.New:Consideration of all relevant amendments to the lawOverview of national regulations in China, Korea, Japan and the USAAppendix with relevant legal texts Author:Prof. Dr. Aloys Hüttermann is a patent attorney in Düsseldorf, co-editor of the planned commentary on the unitary patent system and known as a specialist in this field through numerous lectures.

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply provisions of the Lanham Act. * * * In order to receive protection under the Lanham Act, a mark must be distinctive - that is, it must uniquely identify a particular brand. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992). The PTO organizes marks using categories of ascending distinctiveness: "(1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful." Id. Suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful marks are inherently distinctive, and thus eligible for registry. See id. By definition, generic and descriptive marks lack the requisite distinctiveness. Id. at 768-69, 112 S.Ct. 2753. A generic mark "refe[rs] to the genus of which the particular product is a species." Id. at 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753. In other words, a generic mark "denotes the product rather than any of the brands of the product." Door Systems, Inc. v. Pro-Line Door Systems, Inc., 83 F.3d 169, 171 (7th Cir. 1996). A descriptive mark "conveys an 'immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods.'" Frosty Treats, 426 F.3d at 1005 (quoting Stuart Hall Co. v. Ampad Corp., 51 F.3d 780, 785-86 (8th Cir. 1995)). Descriptive marks may only be placed on the Principal Register "if shown to have acquired a secondary meaning." Id. * * *The Lanham Act protects both registered and unregistered trademarks. See Matal v. Tam, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 1744, 1752, 198 L.Ed.2d 366 (2017) ("[E]ven if a trademark is not federally registered, it may still be enforceable under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which creates a federal cause of action for trademark infringement."). In a trademark suit, whether a mark is registered is important because it determines which party bears the burden of persuasion. If the mark is not registered, the mark user bears the burden of showing that the mark is protected by the Lanham Act. Zobmondo Entm't, LLC v. Falls Media, LLC, 602 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2010); Bd. of Supervisors for Louisiana State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Smack Apparel Co., 550 F.3d 465, 474 (5th Cir. 2008) ("To prevail on their trademark infringement claim, the plaintiffs ... must establish ownership in a legally [protectable] mark, and ... they must show infringement by demonstrating a likelihood of confusion."). But if a mark is listed on the PTO's Principal Register, the party challenging the mark's validity bears the burden of showing the mark is not protected by the Lanham Act. Lovely Skin, 745 F.3d at 883.ZW USA, Inc. v. PWD Systems, LLC, 889 F. 3d 441 (8th Cir. 2018)