IEFnl
DOSSIERS
Alle dossiers
Gepubliceerd op woensdag 5 februari 2025
IEF 22513
      

Article: Forecasting the EU intellectual property law landscape for 2025

Article written by Tobias Cohen Jehoram, Anne Marie Verschuur and Selmer Bergsma, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek. As we step into 2025, IP law in the European Union is set to undergo interesting changes. This article outlines the most anticipated developments in all areas of IP law. From landmark court cases to pivotal legislative reforms, we explore the key trends and decisions that will shape the future of IP in the EU.

Trademark trails

  • Regarding trademarks, a number of cases are already on the CJEU's plate, including:
  • The CJEU is expected to hand down its judgment in the high-profile IKEA case, where a Belgian court seeks guidance on balancing protection for the holders of famous trademarks with the right of freedom of expression.
  • In the CeramTec case, the French Cour de Cassation has asked the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on applicability of the autonomous EU concept of bad faith, specifically whether the grounds for invalidity due to bad faith overlap with other grounds for refusal, such as the functional shape exclusion.
  • The Sanchez case also concerns the concept of bad faith. The CJEU will need to address several questions on this concept and the principle of estoppel. Specifically, the questions involve whether setting a specific time limit for bringing an invalidity action creates an expectation that prevents later claims of bad faith, and if actively opposing overlapping EU trademarks within a reasonable period constitutes a remedy to the situation.
  • The French Cour the Cassation made another referral in the Societe PMJC case, which concerns the revocation of a trademark consisting of a designer's surname if its use misleads the public into believing the designer is still involved in the design of the goods, even after its assignment.

In addition, the following two important cases are pending at the CJEU level:

  • A ruling by the Grand Chamber is expected in the BSH/Electrolux case in 2025. The matter was referred to the CJEU by a Swedish court of appeal and deals with the question about whether a court in one EU member state (in this case, Sweden) has jurisdiction over patent rights in other countries (in this case, Turkey) when the defendant, who is domiciled in the court's country, raises arguments about the patent's validity. If the CJEU decides to follow the Advocate General's opinion in this case, this means departing from its earlier decisions regarding cross-border litigation.
  • In the Halozyme case, a Czech court referred questions to the CJEU about the interpretation of "active ingredient" in the SPC Regulation.

Copyright currents
In terms of copyright law developments, it is interesting to note that following two recent high-profile CJEU judgments in RAAP and Kwantum, several EU Member States have expressed the need for a legislative proposal to the European Commission. This proposal would address the rules and boundaries of the international scope of EU copyright and neighbouring rights law.

  • For the CJEU, its focus will remain on the impact of the Digital Single Market Directive:
  • In the Meta Platforms Ireland case, an Italian administrative court of first instance has asked the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 15 DSM Directive, dealing with the protection of press publications concerning online uses.
  • In the Thuiskopie case, brought by Dutch Supreme Court, the CJEU will need to clarify whether offline streaming copies fall under the private copying exception.
  • The Dutch Supreme Court has also requested a preliminary ruling in the Anne Frank copyright case. The case addresses the tension between the internet's global reach and its national treatment under copyright law. Can effective geoblocking be the answer? For more information, see our previous article on this case.
  • The German Bundesverwaltungsgericht is looking for clarification of the interpretation of the scope of Article 17 DSM Directive – about the use of protected content by online content-sharing service providers – in the Austro-Mechana and AKM case.
  • In late 2024, the Belgian Cour Constitutionelle referred questions to the CJEU in the Streamz case. These questions also concern the interpretation of the rules on fair remuneration of authors and performers on online streaming platforms.