#CopyRLaw #EULaw #DELaw – CJEU Decision on Peer-to-Peer Copyright Matters

The case (C-149/17) pits the German publishing house Bastei Lübbe against a private individual, Mr Michael Strotzer, who has an internet connection which would have been used to share, and make downloadable, an audio book on a platform Peer-to-peer with an unlimited number of users.

For the record, French law established the entity HADOPI (High Authority for the Dissemination of Works and Protection of Rights on the Internet) and what is commonly referred to as the “graduated response”. Essentially, in such cases, the HADOPI, or more precisely the HADOPI Rights Protection Commission (CPD), sends successive warnings to the holder of the Internet subscription used.

After three unsuccessful warnings, the CPD may seize the judicial authority on the basis of the negligence breach for failing to prevent the use of its connection for infringement. The contravention can go up to 1,500 euros or 7,500 euros for legal persons.
The CPD can also invoke the basis of the offense of counterfeiting, likely to result in a sentence of up to 3 years imprisonment and 300,000 euros fine or 1,500,000 euros for a legal person.

German law provides a way out for Mr Strotzer. According to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), it is possible to invoke the fundamental right to the protection of family life, and the fact that family members have had access to the internet connection, such that the holder of said connection may not assume responsibility. It was on this basis that Mr. Strotzer argued that his parents living at home had access to this connection, without further specification.

In this context, the Landgericht München I asks the Court of Justice to interpret the provisions of Union law on the protection of intellectual property rights.

The judgment of the CJEU is more in line with the French interpretation. The Court asks the Landgericht München I to find the right balance between the right to an effective remedy and the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the right to respect for private and family life, on the other.

The Court considers that such a balance is lacking when there is almost absolute protection for the family members of the holder of an Internet connection.

The court asks the Landgericht München I to verify the existence, in German law, of other means, procedures and possible remedies.

To be followed closely…


#IPLaw #FRLaw – Advantages and disadvantages of the provisions of the PACTE draft law (FR)

For the record, the French government has made draft law to boost the French economy through business development. This is the PACTE (Action Plan for Growth and Transformation of Enterprises) draft law. The law was adopted at first reading by the National Assembly on October 9, 2018. We will do another a post to inform of the effective entry into force of the law.

Part of the law includes significant changes in French patent law, with a view to promoting its attractiveness.

For this part, the provisions of the draft law have advantages in the sense of attractiveness sought, but also disadvantages that may have a counterproductive effect.

The biggest positive effect would be an announcement effect, namely that companies hearing government’s efforts are more inclined to invest, expand their businesses and expand their portfoliosof IP rights; combined with effective improvement related to the other provisions of the law.

We will review these patent provisions in a synthetic way, with for each one, the current situation, the advantages and disadvantages:

1 °) The provisional patent application

This is the point that is most commented by people not aware of the legal issues of patent law. The relevant provisions have been removed from the draft PACTE Law to be introduced by regulation.

The aim is to bring it closer to the American system where applicants have the opportunity to file an application that does not necessarily fulfill the formal requirements, at reduced cost, without the filing being analyzed by the Patent Office (in our case the INPI). The applicant then has the opportunity to re-file the subject-matter of the provisional application one year later at the most, in due form.

The advantage could be a first quick filing to have an application date at a lower costs.

In the current system, as already discussed in a previous post, it is already possible to file a patent application without paying the official fees, to have a filing date and benefit from the effects of a provisional application.

Unfortunately, substantive issues usually arise. The costs of preparation and filing by an expert are intended to cover several subject-matters functionning in the same way as the preferred embodiment of the applicant, allowing to have a wide scope of protection, more difficult to circumvent.
If an applicant files a provisional (or definitive) patent application without the assistance of an expert, the description will likely be limited in terms of coverage, and it will be difficult or impossible to increase the scope of the patent application, as well as having a first filing date.

Therefore, whether for a provisional definitive or final application, the assistance of an expert is highly recommended for the drafting of the patent application.

A provisional application will therefore set specific rules, but the “provisional” effect can already be used today.

The implementation by regulatory means would be provided in 6 months according to a statement of Mr. Bruno LEMAIRE in September 2018.

2 °) Strengthening the quality of patents (examination of inventive step)

One of the important measures of the draft PACTE law is the possibility for the INPI to reject patent applications for non-invention (in particular for lack of technical effects) or for lack of inventive step (Article 42bis).
In the current situation, the INPI can reject a patent application only for manifest lack of novelty, as regards the conditions of patentability. Inventive step and the non-invention aspect are examined before the courts in case of litigation.

The advantage of this provision would be the issuance of patents that further satisfy the requirements of patentability. It would result mechanically that fewer patents would be issued by the INPI which benefits third parties and not applicants. This measure will probably lead to a decrease in the number of French filings, and deflate patent portfolios.

A common practice of having patents or parts thereof serving for a business purpose will be greatly limited. These patents still make it possible to be viewed by the customers as a company in a constant search for innovation even if there is not a breakthrough innovation every time. This currently benefits all types of applicants (SMEs and large groups).

This provision will result in an increase in INPI’s staff, an increase of analysis time and an increase of the time to issue the French patent. An increase of the INPI official fees is therefore to be expected. Similarly, the experts will have to spend more time on the files taking into account these changes of law, which will result in an increase of the consulting costs (in the current state, the expert checks that certain elements are indeed new and preferably inventive and confirms this to the client, without necessarily having to demonstrate inventiveness in detail to the INPI).

The entry into force is planned within two years after the promulgation of the PACTE law.

3 °) Opposition proceedings before the INPI

The opposition procedure will allow any third party with an interest in acting to question the validity of the patents issued by the INPI. If the mechanism used at the EPO is used, there will be some exchange of written arguments and then some oral proceedings.

In the current state, third parties only have the opportunity to file observations with relevant documents without being party to the proceedings and without any obligation to identify themselves or to prove an interest in acting . The third-party observations are possible 2 months after the publication of the patent application. Beyond that, you have to go to court.

The advantage would therefore be greater legal certainty for third parties, and standardization with other countries (namely the EPO, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Norway , Finland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Japan and the United States).

This proposal seems to go in the right direction, but will necessarily, in the same way as above, impose associated procedural and advisory costs.

4 °) The promotion of the utility certificate

The utility certificate is a title similar to a patent but of reduced duration, and issued without examination of the INPI. The law aims at increasing its duration from 6 to 10 years (as in Germany), and to implement the possibility of converting an application for a utility certificate into a patent application.

Only in case of litigation, a search will be required. With the PACTE law, it can be envisaged that research will also be required with the said transformation.

The improved utility certificate will come closer to the current potentially non-inventive patent with a shorter lifetime, and without a search report by the EPO (making it possible to anticipate the outcome of a European filing on the same invention).

The measures are mainly administrative and should not lead to substantial increases in costs.

5 °) A great absentee of the proposals remains the designation FR-PCT

To date, the international applications to be validated in France are necessarily made through the EPO, and the European patent is then validated in France.

It would have been interesting for foreign applicants wishing to be protected only in some European countries to have the possibility of directly designating France. A direct designation is already possible in Germany and the United Kingdom namely, and this would be in preparation in Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands namely.

In conclusion, the government attempts through this means to stimulate the development of companies and the protection of their industrial property to reach the levels of other countries, including Germany. The most important lever would have been to change the minds of entrepreneurs namely by training the companies on the interests of the protection of intellectual property. Indeed, German entrepreneurs have quickly have the reflex to file a patent application while French entrepreneurs are more inclined to test the product on the market which is generally detrimental to the validity of a patent filed thereafter.


#IPLaw #USLaw – Judgment erasing damages due by APPE Inc. to the WARF (University of Wiscousing) (US)

For the background of the case, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) sued Apple in january 2014, before the Wiscounsin District Court.

The WARF argued that Apple was infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,781,752, essentially concerning instructions executions in a predictive way by processors. The WARF argued that the A7, A8 and A8X integrated circuit chips infringed the patent in issue by their processors comprising a “Load-Store Dependency Predictor” (LSD).

As usual in these procedures, Apple has made a counterclaim for non-infringement and invalidity judgments of the patent in suit. In particular, U.S. Patent No. 5,619,662 was raised as a prior art anticipating predictive technology.

The District Court ruled in favor of the WARF regarding the novelty and the jury found the non-invalidity (ie: the validity of the patent), and the infringement of the patent. In addition, the jury has awarded the WARF, damages of more than 234 million dollars. Apple’s requests were rejected.

Apple appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Federal Circuit.

The Court of Appeal redid an analysis of the wording of the claims, in particular the use of the terms “particular” and “prediction”, the opinions of the experts of the parties and the arguments of the parties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of the patent (in favor of the WARF), but also ruled in favor of APPLE because it overturned the decision on counterfeiting, awarding damages of over $ 234 million to the WARF.

This is a victory for Apple concerning the alleged infringement.

The patents in question (that of the WARF and the prior art) are protected only in the US, which shows that particular attention is required when entering the American market.


#IPLaw – Clauses of Twitter general conditions deemed illegal or abusive (FR)

The validation of the general conditions is often done automatically. Thank God, associations of consumers and especially judges ensure the lawfulness and abusiveness of certain clauses not negotiated by “co-contractors”.

The French association Union Fédérale des Consommateurs – QUE CHOISIR (en abrégé UFC – QUE CHOISIR, et ci après UFC) has sued TWITTER (Company TWITTER Inc. (US) and Company TWITTER INTERNATIONAL COMPANY (IE)), before the Court of Grande Instance (TGI) of Paris on March 24, 2014 for many grievances regarding consumers in France, for the purpose of declaring an abusive or illegal nature of 269 clauses of the General Terms of Use and other Disclaimer (GCU) of the TWITTER platform.

the UFC asked, among other things:

  • € 1,000,000 for compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the collective interest of consumers;
  • € 1,000,000 in compensation for the material damage suffered by the collective interest of consumers;
  • € 55,000 under Article 700 CPC (court costs incurred by the party claiming reimbursement).

The decision of the TGI of 7 August 2018 is 236 pages long, and includes several legal points. Those who caught our attention are:

1 °) The 2014 and 2015 versions provided for a presumption of user liability for the published content, exempting TWITTER from its liability.

The TGI considers that “(…) the clause, which provides that the liability will be borne solely by the person who provided the content by fully exonerating the host, is unlawful as contrary to Article 6.I.2 of the law for confidence in the digital economy and abusive within the meaning of Article R. 132-1 6 °) become Article R. 212-1 6 °) of the code of consumption, the clause having the effect of abolishing or reducing the right to compensation for damage suffered by the consumer in the event of the breach by the professional of one of his obligations.“.

This clause has later been adapted to be limited to what is allowed by the country of residence of the user.

2) The 2014 and 2015 versions provided for a license for TWITTER of the content published by the user on the platform, including the right for TWITTER to sublicense.

The TGI considers that “Under the terms of Articles L. 131-2 and L. 131-3 of the same Code, the contracts by which copyright is transmitted must be established in writing, the transmission being subject to the condition that each of the rights transferred is mentioned separately in the deed of assignment and the area of ​​exploitation of the rights assigned is limited in scope and purpose, location and duration.
Article L. 133-2, which became Article L. 211-1 of the Consumer Code, provides that the terms of the contracts offered by the professionals to consumers must be presented and drafted in a clear and comprehensible manner.“.

The clause is considered illegal.

Surprisingly, this clause still seems to hold in the current GCU.

3 °) The GCUs provide for TWITTER, the possibility of unilaterally modifying the GCUs in a discretionary way, (…) without notice
nor justification.

The TGI considers that “by conferring on the company TWITTER the right to unilaterally modify the” TWITTER Rules “, to which the user must submit, without prior information of the user, the clause criticized is unlawful under Articles L. 111-1 and L. 111-2, Article R. 111-2 I and III, now Article R. 111-2 7 °) of the Consumer Code, Articles L. 121-17, L 121-19-2 and R. 111-2 become Articles L. 221-5, L. 221-6, L. 221-7 of the Consumer Code and abusive within the meaning of Article R. 132-2 6 °) become Article R. 212-2 6 °) of the Consumer Code, in that its purpose or effect is to reserve to the professional the right to unilaterally modify the clauses of the contract.“.

The clause is considered illegal.

The GCUs generate today, in most cases, an action of user acceptance, perhaps also as a consequence of the RGPD.

4) Certain clauses limit TWITTER’s responsibility for data security, in that TWITTER “strives to secure such data”.

The TGI considers that “Under Article 34 of the Data Protection Act on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, the controller is required to take all necessary precautions, the nature of the data and the risks presented by the processing, to preserve the security of the data and, in particular, to prevent them from being distorted, damaged, or that unauthorized third parties have access to it, the data controller to guarantee a level of security adapted to the risk of the treatment.“.

The clause is considered illegal.

The court finds grossomodo in favor of the UFC, deciding that some of the clauses in question are deemed unwritten and some are unlawful. The court awards € 30,000 for non-pecuniary damage and rejects material damage for lack of justification.

To follow closely …


#TMLaw – The setbacks of the application for registration of the figurative mark “MESSI” at the EUIPO

The multi-balloon d’or Lionel Messi has filed several European trademarks with varying degrees of success.

One of them encountered an obstacle that proved to be major, whereas, from our point of view, ways to overcome these obstacles could have been used.
The trademark application in question is the European application 010181154 filed on 08.08.2011, not yet registered. It is a sign with a stylized “M” with a MESSI notation in a specific caligraphy where the E is in another color and another calygraphy.

This filing was made without knowing of an earlier word mark, “MASSI”, which its holder Mr. Jaime Masferrer Coma raised in the context of an opposition to the registration of the “MESSI” mark, in November 2011 in essence on the basis of an argument of risk of confusion between the two signs for sporting goods.

In 2013, the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) decided to reject the registration of the mark  “MESSI” mark.

Lionel MESSI then filed an appeal.

In April 2014, EUIPO rejected MESSI’s appeal, arguing in essence that there would be visual and auditory similarity between the two signs.

Lionel MESSI filed an appeal before the European Union Court (EUT) to seek the annulment of the EUIPO decision.

On April 26, the EUT decided in favor of Lionel MESSI. The EUT considered in essence that Lionel MESSI’s reputation is such that a consumer would necessarily associate the MESSI mark with the footballer, and concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion.

So it was a victory for Lionel MESSI, but the owner of the “MASSI” mark has filed an appeale.

To follow up closely …

This dispute illustrates, on the one hand, the importance of constituting IP rights as soon as possible, especially when international fame is not indisputable, and to avoid years of procedure and high costs. On the other hand, it appears that it is also essential to carry out availability searches including signs similar to the one whose protection is sought, and not to be limited to an identical search.

Expertise in these questions can help avoid litigation …

In fact, an earlier filing would not have had a major impact in the case of MESSI because the “MASSI” mark was filed on 27/11/1996, while Lionel MESSI was still only 9 years old …


#PatLaw – The non-patentability of subject matters considered contrary to public order or morality.

The question of the non-patentability of inventions said to be contrary to public order or morality, differs according to local legislation and “good” morals.

A decision by the Indian Office rejected a patent application for a vibratory sex stimulator (WE VIBE brand of STANDARD INNOVATION Corp. (CA)). The decision is dated April 17, 2017, and can be reviewed at the link below.
The first objection comes directly into the heart of the matter and has a wording that surprises:
The examiner considered in essence that the exploitation of the claimed object is contrary to public order and morality, and falls under the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Indian Patent Law, and is not acceptable.
The examiner further argues that importing and selling sex toys is considered “obscene” and therefore illegal in India.
Most surprisingly, these arguments are supported by Indian law. The examiner cites section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, and refers in addition to section 377. If the first concerns obscene objects whose definition interpreted by the examiner as including sex toys, seems debatable, the second refers to a prohibition of sexual intercourse that is unnatural biologically.

These objections seem insurmountable. The Applicant has obviously not made any counter-arguments.

Objections of this kind would surely have occurred also in countries where legislation is based on religious texts.

For the protection of this type of invention in “sensitive” countries, particular attention must be paid to provide, in the application, ways to overcome this type of objection where possible.

Unlike these countries, the protection of this type of invention at the European Patent Office does not raise this type of problem. Provisions of contravention of public order and morality exist (Article 53a EPC, GII4.1) but the corresponding objections are not conventionally raised for sextoys-type inventions. These objections are almost never raised in other cases.

The Guidelines for the EPO Examination provide in essence that if the invention in question would appear to the public [in all the EPO Contracting States] so repugnant that it would be inconceivable to patent it. The rejected applicant in India (STANDARD INNOVATION Corp.) has several European patents granted.

The EPO Directives mention, for example, a printer-type case with a good resolution enabling to make counterfeit banknotes. In this case, an objection may be raised, and will be surmountable by removing references to making counterfeit banknotes.


#IPLaw #TMlaw – UE Decision against the 3D Mark of KitKat Bars

Since 2007, a litigation occurs between NESTLE (CH) and MONDELEZ (US) (formerly CADBURRY), in particular in Europe. This litigation and the underlying legal reasoning illustrate some elements to be taken into account when a three-dimensional (3D) trademark filing is envisaged.

The subject-matter of the litigation concerns the 3D mark recorded by NESTLE on a chocolate product with 4 glued bars, with an ingot shape. The graphic representation of the mark includes a view in the black and white space of the 4 associated bars without logo.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has accepted the registration of the mark with effect from August 7, 2006, with number 002632529, in class 30, designating: “Sweets; bakery products, pastries, cookies; cakes, waffles”.

On 23 March 2007, CADBURRY (later MONDELEZ) initiated a procedure at EUIPO to cancel the 3D mark in question. Looking in the details of this case, we can see that MONDELEZ sells a similar chocolate bar claimed as being a Norwegian chocolate bar “Kvikk Lunsj” (for “Quick Lunch”) marketed since 1933 by the Norwegian company FREIA, bought in 1993 by KRAFT FOODS, which became MONDELEZ Intl. This gives a clear picture of the interest of MONDELEZ in this case.

As for Kit Kat products, they would also have been marketed since 1933.

On 11 January 2011, the EUIPO annulled the mark in first instance, which NESTLE appealed to later obtain a cancellation of the first instance decision and a rejection of the demand of MONDELEZ. In second instance, EUIPO essentially held that even if there is no “inherent distinctiveness”, NESTLE had shown that that mark had acquired such a character in relation to those goods by the use which has been done.

The Court of the European Union seised by MONDELEZ considered in substance that:

1 °) the distinctive character by the use should have been considered not only in the category (30) but in each subcategory (including in particular bakery products) and concludes that the proof is not established for the products other than sweets and biscuits.

2) EUIPO should have taken into account the distinctiveness achieved by use in EU countries. The investigations showed that the distinctive character was acquired in 10 out of 28 countries (Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland,
Sweden and United Kingdom), but EUIPO did not analyze the evidence for the other Member States, namely Belgium, Ireland, Greece and Portugal.

The EU Court refers the case to EUIPO to re-examine the EU-wide distinctiveness for sweets and biscuits.

This shows a disadvantage of unitary IP titles, because individual marks would have been more likely to succeed in each relevant country.

An English decision of January 2016, also went against NESTLE, judging that the shape of chocolate bars can not be filed as a trademark.

As a conclusion, the acquired distinctiveness
– in the relevant category(ies) and subcategories, and
– in the relevant territory
are  thus important features to review when intending to claim a protection of a 3D shape as a trademark.


#ProfitIP – Generate revenues through patents

As already mentioned, the IP strategy is a significant tool for developing businesses and increasing their market share through legal and commercial means.

Given the relatively high cost of acquiring intellectual property rights, compensation systems for these rights should be considered. At SOERYAH IP, we recommend going as far as possible to the widest possible protection. As a result, intellectual property rights cover a wide range of objects.

Though such a strategy can generate greater procedural costs, It can also generate significant revenue. In particular, if the protection covers objects which are not marketed, it may be advisable in this case to propose that a Third party operates these objects by means of a license agreement.

In this configuration, the licensee thus benefits from a legal monopoly on these objects, which allows him to fix the price without being bothered by a competitor, and to maintain its market shares and margins. In addition, the licensee receives license fees, usually as a percentage of the licensee’s turnover, which is additional income. Rates are negotiated and averages are established based on technical areas.

This type of situation may arise when an invention relates to several different objects A, B, C, in the same inventive concept or having been the subject of divisional applications. Even if object A is the only one actually operated, and the easiest to defend from a patentability point of view, it may be wise to maintain protection for objects B and C. Indeed, it is possible that the products proposed by the holder move to object B, and a third party might be interested in having a monopoly on object C which is in its core business. In this case, the holder could benefit for example from 5% of the turnover of the licensee on the relevant products.

The situation is even more interesting in the case of an individual inventor, despite probable financial limitations. Protecting objects A, B and C allows to offer them to 2 or 3 licensed companies and possibly to other companies abroad. However the costs of filing and extension abroad are significant for a qualitative drafting.

Companies and other IP portfolio firm have an interest in financing the research and patent procedures of isolated inventors, with the objecctive of recovering their investments on the international revenues from the patent. Several interesting patent projects fall into the public domain due to lack of financial means, whereas they could have been a source of significant revenue.

We remain at your disposal for any further information adapted to your situation.


#ProfitIP – The values of French and English brands

The previous publication reports the Forbes 2018 of brand ranking according to the values ofthe marks. The ranking can be viewed on this link.

The ranking shows the backwardness of French and English companies in the technological fields, or consumer products. The first brand of the ranking is Apple with a value of 182 billion dollars. The first European brand is Mercedes at 34.4 billion (13th in the ranking).
The first French brand is Louis Vuitton at 33.6 billion (15th of the ranking), then L’Oreal at 17.2 billion dollars (30th of the ranking).
The first English brand is Accenture at 14.8 billion (38th of the ranking), then HSBC at 11.9 billion dollars (52nd of the ranking).

The gap is considerable, so to French and English companies: ON YOUR MARKS !!!

The question of the method of estimating brand values ​​may arise, in order to get such results.

Several methods for estimating the value of intellectual property rights are proposed and throughoutly discussed. The methods range from the most objective to the as much subjective as possible, taking into account scores on several criteria. The consensus is towards ISO 10668 standard. The same is obtained after national commissions of experts in marketing, tax, IP attorneys and accounting experts, from several countries of the European Union, and of Australia, Japan, Korea and China.

The standard is methodological and based in substance on three valuation approaches:
The income approach
The market approach
The approach by the costs.

In the income approach, the value of the IP right depends on the income it is likely to bring over its remaining life. Six methods are listed in the ISO 10668 standard, including the cash flows, the surplus profits specifically related to the IP right in question.

The market approach aims at estimating the value of a mark on the basis of the market price, usually by referring to comparable brands whose transaction prices have been made public.

The cost approach aims at estimating the value of an IP right on the basis of the costs incurred for its creation.

Other more complex methods, such as that of Interbrand, take into account brand-specific gains and a variety of “brand strength” parameters, namely, its positioning, the environment, competition, past performance and future plans. The parameters are weighted and the set of scores is used to determine the brand value.

the parameters are as follows:
– leadership: (25%) (ie: influence of the brand on the market / market shares);
– stability (15%) (brand sustainability allowing good customer loyalty);
– the trend: (10%) (ability to stay modern and sought after);
– the market: (10%) (business environment, growth rate, customer volatility, barriers to entry …);
– geographical scope: (25%) (frontiers of the protected territory);
– Marketing support: (10%) (generating marketing and communication expenses for the IP right in question);
– protection: (5%) (other IP deeds related to the one in question).

All these parameters are used to determine the value of the IP right in a relatively objective way.


This was only a sample of methods for estimating the value of industrial property rights.


All that remains is doing more and developping your intellectual property rights portfolio, and increase its value through communication campaigns and marketing actions increasing your reputation, and therefore your market share.


#ProfitIP – The value of intellectual property rights – the case of trademarks


Rank Brand Brand Value 1-Yr Value Change Brand Revenue Company Advertising Industry
US #1 Apple $182.8 B 8% $228.6 B Technology
US #2 Google $132.1 B 30% $97.2 B $5.1 B Technology
US #3 Microsoft $104.9 B 21% $98.4 B $1.5 B Technology
US #4 Facebook $94.8 B 29% $35.7 B $324 M Technology
US #5 Amazon $70.9 B 31% $169.3 B $6.3 B Technology
US #6 Coca-Cola $57.3 B 2% $23.4 B $4 B Beverages
KR #7 Samsung $47.6 B 25% $203.4 B $4.5 B Technology
US #8 Disney $47.5 B 8% $30.4 B $2.6 B Leisure
JP #9 Toyota $44.7 B 9% $176.4 B $3.8 B Automotive
US #10 AT&T $41.9 B 14% $160.5 B $3.8 B Telecom
DE #13 Mercedes-Benz $34.4 B 18% $116.9 B Automotive
FR #15 Louis Vuitton $33.6 B 17% $12.9 B $5.4 B Luxury
DE #20 BMW $31.4 B 9% $86.8 B Automotive
DE #23 SAP $26.2 B 10% $25.4 B Technology
FR #30 L’Oréal $17.2 B 10% $10.1 B $8 B Consumer Packaged Goods
CH #31 Nescafe $17.1 B 2% $9.1 B Beverages
FR #35 Hermès $15.3 B 17% $6 B $298 M Luxury
IT #36 Gucci $14.9 B 18% $6.7 B Luxury
DE #37 Audi $14.8 B 5% $59.1 B Automotive
IE #38 Accenture $14.8 B 5% $39.1 B $80 M Business Services
NL #40 IKEA $14.5 B 7% $39.3 B Retail
ES #46 Zara $13 B 16% $18.9 B Retail
SE #47 H&M $13 B -8% $22.5 B Retail
DE #48 Siemens $12.8 B 11% $90 B Diversified
UK #52 HSBC $11.9 B 4% $76.6 B Financial Services
CH #53 Nestle $11.7 B 5% $8.6 B Consumer Packaged Goods
DE #58 Porsche $11 B 14% $25.5 B Automotive
FR #59 Cartier $10.6 B 14% $6.3 B Luxury
AT #61 Red Bull $10.4 B 19% $6.8 B Beverages
FR #67 Danone $10 B -2% $10.6 B Consumer Packaged Goods
DE #68 Adidas $9.5 B 20% $20.6 B $2.3 B Apparel
CH #71 Rolex $9.3 B 7% $4.6 B Luxury
DE #72 T-Mobile $9 B 18% $38.7 B $1.8 B Telecom
ES #76 Santander $8.7 B 5% $49.5 B $820 M Financial Services
DE #77 BASF $8.6 B 9% $69.9 B Diversified
DE #82 Heineken $8.2 B 7% $5.6 B Alcohol
FR #87 Chanel $8 B 10% $5.6 B Luxury
FR #88 Lancome $8 B 13% $5.3 B $8 B Consumer Packaged Goods
DE #89 Nivea $7.9 B 14% $4.7 B $1.6 B Consumer Packaged Goods
DE #90 Volkswagen $7.9 B 16% $99.6 B Automotive
DK #91 LEGO $8.6 B -1% $5.1 B Leisure
NL #93 Philips $7.7 B 6% $26.8 B $1 B Diversified
DE #95 Allianz $7.6 B 11% $118.7 B Financial Services

Source: Forbes.com