Contraception is not a novel concept for anyone in this day and age. In fact, due to the advances in science and technology, we can now find innovative contraceptives even in our local pharmacies and drug stores. But did you know that the field of contraception is also not new to the labyrinth of patent law?

Our digital economy has become more and more data driven. Databases today are increasingly generated and verified with the means of machines, sensors and other new technologies, for example Artificial Intelligence or the Internet of Things (“IoT”). In order to secure the competitiveness of digital sectors and markets there are legislative initiatives on a European level to guarantee the free-flow of data, such as the Data Act Proposal of the European Commission of 23 February 2022. This is a difficult task because of the existing legal framework in relation to the protection of certain types of data contained in databases, specifically under the so-called “sui generis right” of the maker of the database.

Article 27.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the following: “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.”

The protection of intellectual property is essential to furthering innovation on a global scale. Without protection of ideas, inventions, products and services (and the ability to enforce those rights), individuals as well as businesses would most likely focus less on research and development.

In its welcome message at the conference in Brussels on the Unitary Patent system, James Nurton, moderator of today’s event, shows a slide announcing that the new system, will start on April 1, 2023 with 17 participating EU Member States*.  While we are still waiting for the exact date of ratification of the UPC agreement by Germany, the April 1, 2023 start date seems thus now (almost) certain.

Unlike the EUIPO and the Benelux IP Office, the Chinese Trademark Office can refuse a new trademark application based on a prior conflicting mark without the intervention of the prior mark owner. Consequently, contacting the prior mark owner to obtain a letter of consent (the “LoC”) would be a logical approach to consider when it comes to a refusal based on prior mark.

Since 1 January 2021, EU trademarks (EUTMs) are no longer protected trademarks in the UK due to Brexit. In light hereof, the UK IPO created a comparable UK trade mark for all right holders with an existing EUTM. Consequently, you might now have 2 national UK trademarks. One comparable UK trade mark and an international trademark registration designating the UK. To solve this duality, the old principle of replacement comes into play, but is this effective? Is replacement useful? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this principle?