Search terms: Intellectual Property, Netherlands
A group obtained voting computers from two municipalities and published the software on its website. The software company sought an injunction against infringement of its copyright and an order to remove the software from the website. A practical consequence of this case is that a public authority wishing to avoid the application of Section 15(b) of the Copyright Act must explicitly reserve its copyright.
In 1999 a book entitled The Book of Answers, written by Carol Bolt, took the US literature market by storm. Since 2001 the Dutch version of this book has been published by Dutch publisher Bzztôh. For this purpose, Bzztôh obtained the exclusive licensing rights from Bolt. In 2002 another Dutch publisher (Verba) published a similar book, leading Bzztôh to sue for damages.
The decision in Diageo is significant in light of the recent judgment in Lancôme. The sale of products without identification numbers was sufficient to find that the defendants in Lancôme had acted unlawfully, but was insufficient to conclude that the defendants in Diageo caused the members of Diageo's distribution network to breach their obligations.
In TomTom v Garmin TomTom International claimed that the Garmin navigation devices G300 and G500 infringed TomTom's Community design rights in the navigation device TomTom GO. The court decided that the Garmin products did not infringe TomTom's design rights and TomTom was ordered to pay the costs of the interim injunction proceedings.
The Supreme Court recently held that the scent of a perfume was protectable by copyright. The court found that Lancôme's Trésor perfume met the requirements for copyright protection (ie, originality and personal stamp of the author). The court accordingly held that the defendant's Female Treasure scent infringed the copyright in the Trésor scent.
In Adidas Salomon AG v Nike Europe Holding BV Adidas claimed that Nike infringed its three-stripe trademark by using a two-stripe pattern on sports clothing. The Hague Court held that Adidas failed to prove that the general public was likely to be confused. This case is remarkable as Adidas has previously succeeded in similar cases on the basis of its three-stripe trademark.