Diversen - Divers

IEFBE 1714

In de tijdschriften/dans les revues 2016-2

Hieronder een selectie van de hoofdartikelen uit de vakbladen van deze maand. Voor de losse tijdschriftensites dient u apart in te loggen. Hieronder een selectie van de hoofdartikelen uit de vakbladen van deze maand. Voor de losse tijdschriftensites dient u apart in te loggen. Stuurt u ons de inhoudsopgave van dat vakblad: redactie@ie-forum.be (ook voor permanente levering door uitgevers).

BIE 2016 februari* IER 2016/01 Mediaforum 2016/01

* Deze tijdschriften zijn ook opgenomen in de database Praktijkgebied IE.

Berichten IE
Berichten uit het buitenland
Germany, a legal report 2015; Trademarks, designs and unfair competition – Ulrich Hildebrandt

Rechtspraak
Handelsnaamrecht
Nr. 4 Hoge Raad 11 december 2015, Artiestenverloningen/Prae Artiestenverloning, IEF 15523, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:3554 (aanduiding ‘artiestenverloning’ is louter beschrijvend; gebruik daarvan door een derde is, ook indien verwarringwekkend, alleen onrechtmatig indien bijkomende omstandigheden dat meebrengen) – met noot van C.J.J.C. van Nispen

Rechtspraak in het kort
Merkenrecht
Nr. 5 Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden 1 december 2015, H&M/Adidas, IEF 15491 (spoedeisend belang na verwijzing; onderscheidend vermogen en reputatie van een merk)

Geografische aanduidingen
Nr. 6 Hof van Justitie EU 21 januari 2016, Verlados/Calvados, IEF 15643, zaak C-75/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:35 (geografische aanduiding van gedistilleerde dranken; begrip voorstelling in art. 16 onder b Vo. 110/2008; gemiddelde Europese consument; geen verwarringsgevaar vereist; voor de geest komen is voldoende)

IER
Nr. 1 Voorstel voor een richtlijn – Absoluut verbodsrecht voor bedrijfsgeheimen? / Frits Gerritzen p. 1
Nr. 2 Codificatie van IP Translator in het Trademark Reform Package / M.F.A. Enghardt & F. Hekker p. 3

Jurisprudentie
Auteursrecht
Nr. 3 30­09­2015 Rechtbank Amsterdam (ROADSIDE/LAKS), m.nt. VR p. 10
Nr. 4 23­09­2015 Rechtbank Den Haag (Tennis World/PRIME SPORTSGEAR), m.nt. VR onder IER 2016/3 p. 15
Nr. 5 09­11­2015 Rechtbank Gelderland (LIFEMAXX/Bedrijf X), m.nt. VR onder IER 2016/3 p. 22
Nr. 6 07­07­2015 Gerechtshof ’s­Hertogenbosch (Kermisattracties), met redactionele aantekening p. 28

Reclamerecht
Nr. 7 15­09­2015 Reclame Code Commissie (Alpro Pur’Enjoy), m.nt. EHH p. 34
Nr. 8 23­09­2015 Voorzitter Reclame Code Commissie (Hoogvliet Vakantie Doeboek incl. adverteerders), m.nt. EHH p. 37
Nr. 9 07­10­2015 Rechtbank Amsterdam (Skyscanner Ltd./Stichting Reclame Code), m.nt. D. Haije p. 39

Procesrecht
Nr. 10 13­11­2015 Hoge Raad (AIB/Novisem), m.nt. H.J. Koenraad p. 49
Nr. 11 23­09­2015 Voorzieningenrechter Rechtbank Noord­Holland (Teva/Astrazeneca), m.nt. C.J­A. Seinen p. 58

Auteursrecht/Procesrecht
Nr. 12 05­10­2015 Rechtbank Den Haag (BREIN/Google), m.nt. FE p. 63

Merkenrecht
Nr. 13 23­09­2015 Rechtbank Den Haag (Alpargatas/Brands & Concepts), m.nt. MB p. 72
Nr. 14 16­09­2015 Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie (Nestlé/Cadbury), m.nt. W. Pors p. 78

Octrooirecht
Nr. 15 06­10­2015 Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie (Seattle Genetics Inc./Österreichisches Patentamt), m.nt. AFK p. 87

Mediaforum
Opinie
Enkele reflecties op de Europese platform consultatie
Natali Helberger

Wetenschap
Kunst en belediging: sleutelroman en karikatuur
Aernout Nieuwenhuis

Documentatie: rechtspraak|binnenland

Jurisprudentie
Nr. 1 - EHRM 21 juli 2015, Satamedia/Finland m.nt. A.W.Hins
Nr. 2 - CBb 25 augustus 2015, Pretium/ACM m.nt. L. Mensink

IEFBE 1697

Le remboursement de taxes de renouvellement des marques de l’UE

Via BMM Newsflash: de Voorzitter van het BHIM (“BIEEU”) heeft een boodschap uitgestuurd: Merken die vóór 23 maart 2016 vervallen, blijven onderworpen aan de taksen zoals vastgelegd in de huidige Verordening nr. 2869/95 betreffende de te betalen taksen . Merken die vervallen op 23 maart 2016 of erna zijn onderworpen aan de nieuwe (lagere) taksen, zelfs indien hun vernieuwing werd aangevraagd of betaald vóór 23 maart 2016. Het onterecht teveel betaalde deel aan taksen voor merken die vervallen op 23 maart 2016 of erna, zal worden terugbetaald. Voor meer inlichtingen over de wijze van terugbetaling zie oami.

Français ci-dessous

Le remboursement de taxes de renouvellement des marques de l’UE Comme vous le savez, les taxes de renouvellement des marques de l’UE seront réduites à partir du 23 mars 2016, date d’entrée en vigueur du règlement sur la marque de l’UE. A cette occasion, le Président de l’Office a fait la communication suivante. Les marques expirant avant le 23 mars 2016 restent soumises aux taxes établies dans l’actuel règlement n° 2869/95 relatif aux taxes à payer. Les marques expirant le 23 mars 2016 ou après cette date seront soumises au nouveau régime des taxes (plus réduites), même si leur renouvellement a été demandé et payé avant le 23 mars 2016. Tous les excès de taxes de renouvellement indûment payés pour le renouvellement de marques de l’UE expirant le 23 mars 2016 ou après cette date, seront remboursés. Pour plus de renseignements sur le mode de remboursement, consultez  OAMI.

Verklaring over de specificatie van waren en diensten van een Uniemerk, art. 28 (8) UMVo
In dit verband vestigen wij uw aandacht op de publicatie van een communicatie van de Voorzitter van het BHIM (“BIEEU”) begeleid van een lijst van termen die duidelijk niet onder de letterlijke betekenis van de algemene klasse-omschrijving vallen. In de User Area zal vanaf 23 maart e.k. een online document beschikbaar zijn voor het afleggen van de verklaring.

Déclaration sur la désignation des produits et services d’une marque de l’UE, art. 28(8) RègMUE
Dans notre newsletter du 9 février dernier nous vous avons donné des explications sur l’application de l’article 28(8) du règlement sur la marque de l’UE. A cet égard, nous attirons votre attention sur la publication d’une communication du Président de l’Office accompagnée d’une liste de termes qui ne relèvent clairement pas du sens littéral de l’intitulé général de la classe. A partir du 23 mars prochain, un document en ligne permettant de faire la déclaration sera disponible dans le User Area.

IEFBE 1694

Zonder tegenspraak cahier Dirk Voorhoof

Eva Lievens, Jan Lippens, Katrien Van der Perre (red), Zonder tegenspraak, die Keure 2016.
Het 30ste Tegenspraak-cahier is een buitengewoon boek over het omvangrijk oeuvre van Dirk Voorhoof. Zijn emeritaat inspireerde 51 collega's, kunstenaars, vrienden en vriendinnen tot een breed scala van bijdragen. Naar goede Tegenspraak-traditie zijn zowel inhoud als toonzetting van dit cahier kritisch en origineel, maar deze keer ook soms humoristisch en vaak ronduit verrassend.

De reeks ‘Tegenspraak-cahiers’ belicht met een gedurfde kritische benadering actuele juridische en maatschappelijke onderwerpen. Sinds 1985 publiceerde de redactie van Tegenspraak 29 cahiers over de meest diverse onderwerpen. De redactie is een multidisciplinair team van geëngageerde juristen, filosofen en sociologen dat recht ziet als instrument van sociale emancipatie.

Het 30ste Tegenspraak-cahier, met als titel ‘Zonder tegenspraak’, is om verschillende redenen bijzonder. Niet alleen omwille van zijn inhoud en vorm, maar ook omdat dit cahier over Dirk Voorhoof gaat, naar aanleiding van zijn emeritaat als professor aan de Universiteit Gent op 1 februari 2016.

Dirk Voorhoof is al decennia lang lid van de redactie van Tegenspraak.  Zijn omvangrijke oeuvre en zijn rol als public intellectual inspireerden 51 collega’s tot een breed scala van bijdragen: solide opiniestukken over vrije meningsuiting, stakingsrecht, journalistiek en ethiek, klokkenluiders, openbaarheid van bestuur, auteurs- en mediarecht, …

Daarnaast is het boek ook gelardeerd met bijdragen van kunstenaars, vrienden en vriendinnen die persoonlijke herinneringen ophalen aan Dirk Voorhoof en hun inspiratie de vrije loop lieten voor kunstwerken, cartoons, poëzie en speelse beschouwingen over voetbal en wielrennerij. Een buitengewoon boek over en voor een bijzonder man.

Inhoudstafel
Voorwoord: Het hoofd en de benen
Eva Lievens, Jan Lippens en Katrien Van der Perre

De diepe spits
Ruddy Doom

Limedirck – Dirckelim
Eva Brems

Wielrennen, recht en aansprakelijkheid: vive le vélo?
Koen Lemmens

Rechterlijk bevel
Pol Deltour

“Nobody asked your opinion”
Alain Bloch

Hoe is het weer daar?
Joke van Leeuwen

Cartoon: Nieuwe patatjes
Zak

Le centre du monde
Alain Berenboom

Mais où sont les neiges d’antan?
Eric Brewaeys

Op de barricades
Caroline Pauwels

Uit: De Oostakkerse gedichten
Hugo Claus

On Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Dirk Voorhoof
Pieter Verdegem

Waarom…
John Vervaele

Kwetsen als democratisch recht en democratische noodzaak
Johan Vande Lanotte

Een 10 voor Dirk
Jan Kabel

Mission impossible: “Mister Article 10” in robotversie
Peggy Valcke

Gravure: Neem daar maar geen voorbeeld aan
Zaza

Mijmeringen van een BOP of een Bewust Ongeëngageerde Persmagistraat
Lieven Lenaerts

Post voor Dirk
Willem Debeuckelaere

Het Meningloze tijdperk
Egbert Dommering

Omzien in verwondering
Jean-Claude Burgelman

Over de jurist
Luc Coorevits

Het smaakpalet van een academisch kunstenaar
Hannes Cannie

Kinderrechten in de grijze zone
Eva Lievens

FYI
Jan Lippens

A Belgian mentor
Katrien Van der Perre

Le tour de l’article 10
Tarlach McGonagle

Ook een raad kan raad gebruiken
Flip Voets

Brief aan Dirk
Fabienne Brison

Gravure: Ik kap ermee
Zaza

Klokkenluiden: over bescherming, sereniteit en behoorlijke regelgeving
Bernard Hubeau en Gudrun Vande Walle

Dirk over Dirk
Dirk Brossé

Hoe leg ik de staking uit aan mijn kind?
Patrick Humblet

A Belgian professor
Ides Debruyne

Een betrouwbare bron
Wouter Hins

Voorhoof tegen Nederland
Bernt Hugenholtz

Familierecht, persdiscretie en behandeling achter gesloten deuren
Liliane Versluys

Spraakkunst
Hugo Claus

Vervreemd van het nieuws
Tom Naegels

Of zeg ik…
Christine Mussche

Een schitterende carrière als profrenner
Geert Laporte

Herinneringen aan prof. dr. Dirk Voorhoof
Frankie Schram

De persfluisteraar
Jörgen Oosterwaal

Op de bres voor empowerment van journalisten en burgers
Marleen Teugels

Hoofdkwartieren
Roland Waeyaert

Discover your inner Dirk Voorhoof!
Stijn Smet

Geknakt
Ludo de Jager

Droit d’auteur et liberté d’expression 170
Christophe Geiger

De Kannibaal van het mediarecht
Ann Braeckman

Alleskunner
Gerard Schuijt

A holistic approach to Media Law
Inger Høedt-Rasmussen

Over de auteurs

IEFBE 1686

Public Consultation on the Rules on Court fees and recoverable costs

The consultation document Rules on Court fees and recoverable costs comprises two options for a revised Rule 370, a table of fees, a scale of ceilings for recoverable costs and an Explanatory Note. Responses are to be sent to the Secretariat before 31 July (there is no guarantee that responses received after this date will be taken into consideration). In order to facilitate the processing of the submissions received the members of the Preparatory Committee would be grateful if responses are sent in English.

The Committee shall only consider contributions from stakeholders and other interested parties whose identity can be established and who can be contacted at least via e-mail. Contributors who represent organisations are requested to indicate so. If not, their contributions shall be considered to have been made in a personal capacity. Personal data (such as name and address of the contributor, name and type of the organisation, name of the contact person etc.) shall be kept only for the purpose of the consultation and may be used by the Committee for activities related to the consultation. Personal data shall not be given to third parties and shall be destroyed once the analysis of the consultation is completed.

The fee structure for the Unified Patent Court will comprise fixed fees and, for certain actions, an additional value based fee. The fee levels proposed are the lowest that will enable eventual sustainability of the Court.

As well as proposing fee levels, the consultation also addresses a number of points including:

support for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), not for profit organisations and certain other bodies as set out in the Agreement by providing two possible options;

  • the threshold at which a value-based fee will be payable; and
  • a scale of ceilings for recoverable costs.

Comments are welcome on any aspect of the proposal and will be considered by the Preparatory Committee and its appropriate Working Groups prior to publication of an agreed fee structure.

IEFBE 1675

In de tijdschriften/dans les revues 2016-1

Hieronder een selectie van de hoofdartikelen uit de vakbladen van deze maand. Voor de losse tijdschriftensites dient u apart in te loggen. Mist u een vakblad in dit overzicht: stuurt u ons de inhoudsopgave van dat vakblad: redactie@ie-forum.be (ook voor permanente levering door uitgevers).

BIE 2016 januari  Mediaforum 2016-1

Deze tijdschriften zijn ook opgenomen in de database Praktijkgebied IE.

Berichten Industriële Eigendom
Berichten uit het Buitenland
Frankrijk 2015 – Deel II – Rein-Jan Prins 2

Artikel
Merkbescherming van niet ingeschreven bestanddelen – Antoon Quaedvlieg 10

Rechtspraak
Merken- en modellenrecht
Nr. 1 HvJ EU 6 oktober 2015, zaak C-500/14, Ford/Wheel Trim, ECLI:EU:C:2015:680 (merkgebruik voor reserveonderdelen; uitlegging artikel 14 van de Modellenrichtlijn (reparatieclausule); geen beperking merkenrecht mogelijk die verder gaat dan de beperkingen uit de Merkenrichtlijn 2008/95/EG) – met noot van H.J. Koenraad 18

Rechtspraak in het kort
Merkenrecht
Nr. 2 Hoge Raad 2 oktober 2015, eiser A./verweerders C., IEF 15306, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:2908 (overdracht merklicentie; akte-vereiste artikel 6:159 BW) 27

Nr. 3 Hof Den Haag 24 november 2015, Flexi-Force/F.lli Facchinetti, IEF 15459, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:3280
(normaal gebruik; gebruik van op onderdelen afwijkende vorm van een merk die het onderscheidend vermogen daarvan niet wijzigt) 27

Mediaforum
Opinie
Enkele reflecties op de Europese platform consultatie
Natali Helberger
Wetenschap
Kunst en belediging: sleutelroman en karikatuur
Aernout Nieuwenhuis
Documentatie: rechtspraak|binnenland
Jurisprudentie
Nr. 1 - EHRM 21 juli 2015, Satamedia/Finland m.nt. A.W.Hins
Nr. 2 - CBb 25 augustus 2015, Pretium/ACM m.nt. L. Mensink

IEFBE 1674

Twee nieuwe opinies Article 29 Working Party

SCL The IT Law Community bericht: Two new official opinions were adopted by the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party on 16 December and are now published: one on ‘applicable law’ following Google Spain and one on automatic exchange of personal data for tax purposes. Although adopted in December, the latest opinions of the Article 29 Working Party have only now been published.

The first, Opinion 175/16/EN WP 234, has the full title 'Guidelines for Member States on the criteria to ensure compliance with data protection requirements in the context of the automatic exchange of personal data for tax purposes' is a 17-page document and can be accessed as a pdf here.

The second, Opinion 176/16/EN WP 179 update, has the full title 'Update of Opinion 8/2010 on applicable law in light of the CJEU judgement in Google Spain'. That is a much shorter document (12 pages but that includes annexes, including one annex identifying changes to the 2010 Opinion). It does not seem, on a very quick read, to say anything new or profound but SCL members may think differently. The Opinion can be accessed here. The nub of what is communicated is set out below:

'In conclusion, on the basis of the judgement in Google Spain, an additional element should be added to the criteria described in the WP29 Opinion on applicable law, which may trigger the applicability of EU/national law: the criteria of an 'inextricable' (in this specific case economic) 'link' between an activity and the data processing. In its judgement, the CJEU identified this 'inextricable link' taking into consideration the advertisement-financed business model of free on-line services, which is currently the most common mode of operating businesses on the internet. In addition, the judgement suggests that other business models, and different forms of activity (including revenue raising) in an EU Member State may also trigger the applicability of EU law, although the assessment must be made on a case by case basis. Irrespective of where the data processing itself takes place, so long as a company has establishments in several EU Member States which promote and sell advertisement space, raise revenues or carry out other activities, and it can be established that these activities and the data processing are "inextricably linked", the national laws of each such establishments will apply. The judgement provides useful clarification on two aspects: first, the judgement makes it clear that the scope of current EU law extends to processing carried out by non-EU entities with a 'relevant' establishment whose activities in the EU are 'inextricably linked' to the processing of data, even where the applicability of EU law would not have been triggered based on more traditional criteria. Second, the judgement also confirms that - where there is an 'inextricable link' - according to Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 95/46/EC, there may be several national laws applicable to the activities of a controller having multiple establishments in various Member States.'

 

IEFBE 1666

EPLIT Report on the UPC Mock Trial Munich

Report by Chris Ryan. The idea of the European Patent Litigators Association (EPLIT) to run a mock UPC trial [IEF 15506] based on the famous Improver v Remington litigation of the late eighties and early nineties struck me as a really interesting idea when I first heard the suggestion.  It turned out to be a fascinating and highly educational experience when it was run last Friday (22 January) at the Sofitel Bayerpost Hotel conveniently close to Munich station.

The Improver litigation did more than establish the “Improver questions” in English law for assessing equivalence ([1990] FSR 181).  It led to a series of decisions around Europe, based on the same European patent and the same alleged infringement, in which judges reached very different conclusions on the question of whether a claim for a “helical spring comprising a plurality of adjacent windings” covered a solid rubber rod with slits cut into it, which was capable of performing the same task – pulling out hair when set up in an arcuate configuration and rotated at speed around its axis. Will the arrival of the UPC repair the fault line in the European Patent system, which the Improver story so clearly identified?  On the evidence of the mock trial it will do just that.  The “mock” Local Division in Munich reached a decision on validity and infringement which took effect in every designated Member State albeit that it may take time to develop a body of interpreted law and procedure that is consistent across the territory of the EU and distinct from that of the individual Member States from which judges may be drawn.

The panel of judges consisted of Prof Haedicke (Oberlandesgericht in Düsseldorf), Mr Zigann (Landgericht in Munich) and Mr Van Walderveen (District Court in The Hague).  They were joined by Mr Klein as Technical Judge (formerly of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office).

The patent proprietor was represented by Rainer Beetz (Sonn and Partner, Austria) and Leythem Wall (Finnegan Europe LLP, Great Britain).  The defendant was represented by  Marek Lazewski (Lazewski Depo and Partners, Poland) and Jan Stein (Ipracraft AB, Sweden). The case documents had been prepared by these representatives together with Markus Rieck (Fuchs Patent Attorneyes, Germany). 

I found the main trial (in the afternoon) was slightly less interesting than the Case Management Conference which preceded it in the morning.  The final conclusion was that the patent was valid and infringed.  However, it was not the outcome that I found most interesting.  It was the differences in approach adopted by advocates and judges and the manner in which the presiding judge ran the business of the trial.

On the first point, the debate on validity turned on inventiveness over two elements of prior art.  It was not entirely clear (to me, at least) which of several available tests for determining inventiveness was being relied on at different stages of the debate between the judges and the advocates, or in the judges’ deliberation over their conclusion.  Similarly, in respect of the infringement issue, all parties seemed to agree that two questions required to be asked by the judges but were unsure whether there was a third question and, if so, what it should be.  I suspect that all the judges were deliberately staying within the comfort zone of the approach that would be adopted at each stage within their own domestic courts.  Their approach certainly illustrated the challenge facing the UPC (at both first instance and appeal level) of establishing a body of jurisprudence over time which will be distinct from the law emanating from national courts.

The second point that struck me was the power of the presiding judge in setting an agenda and then outlining each issue in some detail before inviting the parties’ advocates to address it.  It may be, of course, that the stark contrast with the way in which a case would be conducted in London was accentuated by the artificiality and time constraints of a mock trial.  And no doubt those familiar with EPO hearings will find the inquisitorial approach and management of the debate on each issue more familiar.  It certainly led to a crisply efficient disposal of each element of the case and the dispute as a whole.

Firm management of the process and the emergence of national differences in approach were even more evident during the Case Management Conference. 

The organisers of the event had tweaked some of the facts of the original case in order to create some interesting preliminary issues.  Had the proprietor opted back into the exclusive competence of the UPC in time where the defendant had issued an application for a declaration of non-infringement in the English Court on the same day as that on which the application to opt back in was entered on the register (Rule 5.9 – opt out not permitted where “an action has been commenced before a court of a Contracting Member State …prior to the entry of the [opt back in] Application in the register…”).  If it had, should the UPC proceedings nevertheless be stayed under the Brussels Regulation’ requirements to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.  And if the proceedings were still on their feet after those two challenges did the Local Division have jurisdiction over the dispute, given that, first the only sales in Germany had been a couple made by a third party who had acquired the goods in Poland and on-sold them in Germany against the wishes of the defendant and, secondly, very substantial sales had been made in the UK.

There was also an application at the Case Management Conference to strike out the claim of literal infringement because it was unarguable (application granted by the Rapporteur but reviewed at the main hearing, when the ruling was reversed) and the court required the claimant/plaintiff to amend the request for remedies (prayer for relief) by providing a great deal more detail as to the scope of the injunction sought.  The amended version available at the main hearing tracked the language of the relevant patent claims in identifying which products would be covered and even included a photograph of the defendant’s product.  The difference between the precision of drafting expected in, for example, the German courts was contrasted with the broad scope of injunction sought and granted in the English courts.  In this case the German pattern prevailed, designed, it was said, so that a court bailiff called upon to enforce it would have no doubt as to whether a product he came across did or did not fall within the scope of the court order.

Other issues touched upon included the language of the proceedings (English because it was one of the languages which the Local Division had designated), translation facilities at the main hearing, summoning of witnesses, the appointment of a technical judge and, in the light of his appointment, the need for any expert evidence (and in which field of technology), as well as security for costs.

Listening to the well-structured submissions on each of the issues raised, and then eavesdropping on the judges as they considered their decision, proved to be an extremely effective means of improving (gaining) familiarity with the relevant procedural rules.  The judges helpfully paced both the debate with the advocates and their own deliberations to assist the audience in tracing each issue, and the decision made on it, back to the language of the current draft of the rules.

Judges, advocates and organisers are to be congratulated on an extremely informative and interesting learning experience.   Another success for the increasingly effective Association which brings patent attorneys together from around Europe in its continuing efforts to assist their preparations for the new court and to influence the way it will operate.

Chris Ryan

IEFBE 1651

Beta versie image search in eSearch plus

Uit het persbericht: A completely new way to search for images. It happens to us all, you don't remember someone's name, but you can certainly put a face to them. When you are searching for trade marks, you may have that same feeling, but, what if you can use visual elements in your search? We are introducing a beta version image search in eSearch plus, so that we can collect direct feedback from users like you.

Visual search
Proper trade mark clearance is the key to a successful application. With eSearch plus, you can search for, or monitor, images combined with criteria like the Vienna and Nice Classifications. Just click on the camera icon and drag and drop an image into the search field to find similar-looking marks.

Search for exactly what you need Select and adjust a red frame to zoom in or out of the areas you want to search for.

Power your search with classification Combine your image search with the Vienna and Nice Classifications. Available in advanced search.

See up to 100 results at once With three different viewing options: Detail List Images

Upload different formats You can use any of these formats: jpg, png, gif, tiff

Combine with other search criteria Such as trade mark name, type or filing date, etc.

Colour search Look for trade marks registered specifically for colour protection.

(...) Ready to try it?
For all our information on how to perform an image search successfully, please read our help files. With this new feature of eSearch plus we are following the practice of modern IT companies and launching a beta version. This way we can receive your feedback and make the required changes in real-time. Give us your feedback.