#IPlaw #TMlaw – Confirmation of the validity of the Louboutin red sole trademark.

After the Paris High Court (TGI) in March 2017, the Paris Court of Appeal recognized, on May 17, 2018, the distinctive character of the Louboutin red sole.

In the shoe industry, many eagerly wait for a court decision establishing that a shoe sole color would not be protectable and could not be appropriate by a company.

For the record, schematically, an infringement of a trademark right can be characterized when consumers perceiving a sign believe that they are dealing with company A, when in fact it is an operation of a company B. But it is important that the sign in question be registered as a trademark in the relevant operating territory.

Applying this principle to the case of the red sole, it appears that the Court of Appeal rightfully recognized the distinctive character of this sole.

A similar decision was made in favor of Louboutin in the United States in 2012, according to which in essence, the trademark may be claimed unless the rest of the shoe has the same color.

A decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union is expected in another dispute …

To be followed up closely…


#IPBasics – Patent of invention

As well as for Trademarks and design rights, a patent is a title deed, with the particularity of protecting a technical innovation. As a title deed, it is part of the company’s assets and significantly affects its valuation.

The caselaw concerning the technical nature is abundant. Schematically, a claimed object is legally considered technical when it includes concrete elements or hardware elements of the computer field.

The devices, methods, and compositions are unanimously considered as being technical.

Pure software is considered non-technical. One solution may be to argue about the advantages of software over the hardware.

Another subject of caselaw relates to the patentability relating to life (genetic sequences, protein, micro-organisms, transgenic plants or animals …).

The principle of patent is that the inventor communicates his innovation to advance society in terms of technological progress. In return, the society grants a legal monopoly over the innovation in question for a limited period, usually 20 years.

It is therefore important to quickly take advantage of this monopoly to generate revenues from innovation with the advantage that no competitor has the right to propose the same innovation. This makes the patent an effective legal weapon. In addition, patent revenues can be increased when customers know that the innovation has been filed for a patent. This makes the patent an effective commercial weapon.

The profitability of a patent is all the more important as the costs of obtaining and maintaining patents are important.


#csp – Enhanced ACL repair

A spounge optimizes the growth of the ACL

#ipl #brexit- Nouveaux éclaircissements dans le sort des droits de PI après “l’entrée en vigueur” du BREXIT

La Commission Européenne et le Royaume-Uni ont publié le 19 mars dernier, une nouvelle version de l’accord de retrait relatif au BREXIT. L’accord fait mention d’une période transitoire se terminant le 31 décembre 2020 (art. 121).



Les sections en vert sont celles pour lesquelles il y aurait un accord formel.

L’article 50 et suivants concernent les droits de propriété intellectuelle UE (régis par Règlements de l’UE et enregistrés/délivrés notamment par l’Office PI de l’Union Européenne – EUIPO). Pour mémoire, le BREXIT n’aura aucun impact sur les brevets européens (délivrés par l’Office Européen des Brevets – OEB).

Les droits de PI UE enregistrés ou délivrés avant la fin de la période transitoire deviendront respectivement des droits de PI comparables anglais en vigueur, sans réexamen (Art 50 (1)). L’invalidation ou la révocation des premiers devra affecter les deuxièmes (Art 50 (3)).

Les frais à prévoir pour les déposants n’auraient pas encore fait l’objet d’un accord formel.

A suivre de près…

#ipl # brexit- New clarifications in the fate of IP rights after “entry into force” of BREXIT.

On March 19, 2018, the European Commission and the United Kingdom published a new version of the withdrawal agreement for BREXIT.

The agreement refers to a transition period ending on December 31, 2020 (Art. 121).


The sections in green are those for which there is a formal agreement.

Article 50 and following concern EU intellectual property rights (governed by EU Regulations and registered/granted interallia by the European Union IP Office – EUIPO). As a reminder, BREXIT will have no impact on European patents (granted by the European Patent Office – EPO).

EU IP rights registered or granted before the end of the transitional period will become respectively comparable UK IP rights in force, without re-examination (Art. 50 (1)).

The invalidation or revocation of the firsts will affect the seconds (Art. 50 (3)). The costs to foresee for the applicants would not have yet been subject to a formal agreement.

To be monitored closely…


#ipl #brexit – BREXIT et Brevets Européens

Comme confirmé par le CIPA et l’OEB le 25 janvier dernier, le BREXIT n’aura aucun impact le brevet européen.