Friday, 30 October 2015
This Kat is all in favour of finding ways by which people will prefer the genuine IP thing. With all due respect to Charles Duhigg and his enthusiasm for fashioning habits, this Kat is not very optimistic about changing collective habits in this manner. Perhaps the more fruitful way to view the problem is to focus on business models in the 3D space. After all, we have seen from the response by the music and film industries that it ultimately it may make more sense to seek business models by which their customers will be prepared to pay for genuine digital contents. This Kat recognizes that 3D printing is a complex ecosystem with more than a few moving parts, such that there is no such thing as a “single business model” that will encompass all involved. Still, it is worthwhile to consider one possibility, namely the potential role of fulfilment centres.
To do so, we need to retreat a bit from the widely-expressed view that 3D printing will become the ultimate form of disintermediation, whereby ultimately each of us will have one or more 3D printers in our home for making endless products to our heart’s consent. Under this view, the customer becomes the manufacturer, and the role of entities to sell and distribute products to us, be it Wall-Mart or Amazon.com, is significantly diminished. This Kat remains skeptical that a large swathe of the population will want to engage in making things in their spare time, at the expense of exploiting the home as a source of entertainment and information. Still, many persons will be attracted to 3D printing as a means for enabling the making of goods suited for one’s specific requirements, even if such production will not take place within the confines of one’s home.
So where might this 3D printing take place? The answer—at a commercial fulfilment centre, by which we mean at the physical site of an entity, where a customer will be able to select the desired product, and the fulfilment centre will then proceed to make it on-site for the customer. True, the fulfilment centre will also benefit from this arrangement as form of middleman, but in so doing it will provide a desired service for a customer, who wants to benefit from 3D printing, but not at home.
Moreover, it may be significantly easier to enforce one’s IP rights vis a vis a fulfilment centre than to try and go after a legion of miscreants at home for alleged IP violations. We have seen how problematic enforcement at this personal level can be in connection with downloading digital songs and films, either due to privacy concerns or by virtue of an explicit statutory exemption. These challenges might be materially reduced if 3D printing becomes less a matter of home production and more the business of commercial fulfilment centres. Ironically, perhaps, IP owners might well hope that, despite the more enthusiastic ambitions of 3D printing advocates, it never really becomes ubiquitous in the home.
It is disappointing when things don’t meet expectations, particularly after years of consistency. In this instance it is the recent post from the Katonomist that was, rarely, far from insightful. Some aspects were simply wrong. I refer to “Living together: the symbiosis of lookalike packaging”.There is a level of unconventional thinking here that suggests she is either being mischievous or that someone else wrote the post – a lookalike? Perhaps she’s just a confused Kat?TerminologyThe terminology she contributes, presumably to be helpful, is not correct:
- Products carrying supermarket names, or affiliated to a supermarket, are indeed called “private labels” or “own labels” and we use these terms ourselves. Where these are distinctively packaged products they compete on their own merits and are not implicated, affected or otherwise involved in concerns over similar packaging. It is wrong to conflate the two;
Readers, what is your view? Do please let us know!- “Lookalikes”, “copycats” or “parasitic copies” are terms that refer to products that mimic the packaging of familiar brands in order to steal sales. They have a further defining feature in our definition – they are illegal under existing law. Many such copies are supermarket products but this is not exclusively the case. Another manufacturer may well produce a copy.The term “parasitic copying”, the preferred description of the British Brands Group, is not some pejorative term created for manipulative lobbying purposes but a recognised ‘wrong’ in unfair competition law on mainland Europe. We use it as it is both descriptive and highlights the contrast in available effective remedies between the continent (good) and the UK (bad).Harm to brandsThe Kat argues that parasitic copies, far from harming brands, actually grow the market. This is new thinking. It would be a point to debate were she talking about supermarket products but she is talking about parasitic copies (judging from the title of her piece).To survive and thrive, branded products must add value and benefits to the individual over and above the commodity alternative. They must then communicate that added value through differentiation and be distinctive on shelf to draw shoppers’ attention. The enemy of branding is commoditisation. Where all products in a category look the same, the signal to shoppers would be that they are the same. Shoppers will be unable to distinguish between them and see no reason to pay more for any added value or benefit. There would be less incentive for the brand owner to innovate or build reputation as the benefits could not be communicated from the supermarket shelf.Ironically, evidence cited by the Kat that parasitic copies don’t harm brands is actually evidence of harm. This is research she knows well as she had some responsibility for it as an Intellectual Property Office (IPO) employee. For example, one of the IPO’s conclusions from this research is that “Consumers are more likely to make mistaken purchases if the packaging of products is similar and there is strong evidence that consumers in substantial numbers have made mistakes” [emphasis added]. This is a consistent finding over two decades of research.
When a shopper buys a copy by mistake, there is a clear and direct loss and harm. Despite the Kat’s argument to the contrary, this does look like a zero sum transaction. Either one product or the copy is purchased. There is no evidence that someone who never buys, say, shower gel suddenly enters the market and buys on seeing packaging that looks like a familiar brand, or that a shower gel buyer, on seeing a copy, buys two packs instead of one. There is also no evidence that a shower gel user showers more often, and thereby uses more gel, driven solely by similar packaging. Such effects would indeed grow the market but just don’t seem plausible.
Showers can be fun even
when there's no gel ...ChoiceThe copy does not increase choice, as the Kat argues. The packaging suggests the product is the same so is no choice there. The copy may well be cheaper but that also does not increase choice of price. Copies are rarely cheapest on the market and the same product would be just as cheap, if not cheaper, were it packaged legally and distinctively. It is worth remembering that it is the retailer that controls the price of both the original and the copy. We have always made it plain that brand owners do not seek fines or damages. They just want illegally packaged products re-packaged legally and distinctively and returned to the market. This would preserve both choice and competition.Category and brand cuesThe Kat, worryingly, does not distinguish between category and brand cues. She argues that similar packaging makes shopping easier, quoting the example of different milk top colours to denote full fat, skimmed and semi-skimmed. These are ‘category cues’, do indeed help shoppers and are generic (i.e. used by many). Brand owners have no issue with these and indeed may use them themselves. They are very different from brand cues, such as red labels for Coca-Cola, the unusual asymmetric pack shape of Head & Shoulders or the tubby, dark glass container with a yellow top that signals Marmite. It is the brand cues that the parasites copy and which are at issue.It is perhaps worth distinguishing between packaging that tells the truth and packaging that lies. If a product is packaged to look like a familiar branded product, has identical qualities and is made by the same company, then similar packaging would indeed be helpful to shoppers and would be lawful. Shoppers can trust the packaging signals and choose whether to buy accordingly. An example might be a branded product that is also supplied as a supermarket product as was the case with Weetabix and Asda’s Wheat Bisks, mentioned in the Penguin v Puffin case (1997).In contrast, a product packaged to look like a familiar brand but without the same qualities and/or not made by the same company lies and sends wrong, highly misleading signals to shoppers. In grocery, shoppers make decisions fast and rely particularly on colour and shape of packs to inform their choices. The IPO research confirmed a correlation between similarity of packaging and people’s perceptions that the products came from the same company and/or have higher quality. It also confirmed that similar packaging increases people’s likelihood of buying the product.That’s the nub. Parasitic packaging – which is packaging that lies and is illegal – increases sales, whether through more mistakes or increasing artificially the appeal of products. It is subtle, dupe marketing, is persistent and is going unchallenged.RemediesThe Kat is wrong to imply that brand owners want Government to intervene and fight their battles for them. The truth is the opposite. Brand owners want effective tools to deal with the problem themselves. In the UK there are three potential remedies, all with flaws:- IP rights may look to offer sufficient protection on paper but using them in practice is challenging. This is due to the high evidentiary threshold required by courts, the difficulty of proving confusion (survey evidence is often not accepted) and difficulties in proving misrepresentation.There are signs that passing off in particular is moving against brand owners, with the long-standing principle that someone should not seek to take another’s goodwill being replaced with the view that copies can “live dangerously” if they keep a safe distance away (Specsavers v ASDA, 2012). This was followed in the Moroccanoil v Aldi case and amounts to a judicial sanction of “living dangerously”.Back in 2006, the Gowers Review, commissioned by Government, found that brands were not well protected in the UK and recommended that the new Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs) be given a chance to work.- The CPRs provide broader protection than IP rights in making it unlawful to mislead over a product’s quality or equivalence and thereby influences the purchasing decision. However in the UK civil enforcement lies under the control of Trading Standards, not brand owners. Interestingly Government sees one enforcement action in seven years and statements from Trading Standards that they do not have the resources and will not enforce as strong, unchallengeable evidence that enforcement is effective as required in the underlying Directive;- Provisions against misleading comparative advertising are also relevant, as parasitic copies make a strong implicit comparative claim: “I am like the brand”. A lawful comparative claim must be objective and quantifiable, but the copy’s claim is broad, inferring it is like the brand in every respect, including ingredients, manufacture, reputation and image. While the Misleading Comparative Advertising Directive requires companies to be protected from such misleading advertising, in the UK only Trading Standards may enforce, not brand owners.The UK Government has just decided not to grant brand owners civil enforcement powers under the CPRs. It fears unintended consequences and an increase in litigation. The potential to stamp out an illegal practice doesn’t seem to carry weight.As a result, the CPRs will not have the effect anticipated in the Gowers Review and are unlikely to meet the enforcement performance threshold required by the Directive. That leaves the big underlying question unanswered: how are legitimate brand owning companies in the UK to have effective tools to protect themselves and their customers against illegal packaging? That ball remains firmly with Government.The Kat, at the start of her post, states she was compelled to put in her two cents worth. She got her pricing just about right.
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
The Del Boy referral: Tommy Hilfiger Licensing
The Czech Supreme Court has referred two questions to the CJEU for preliminary ruling. Both are concerned with the remedies rights holders might have against intermediaries who lease stalls to market traders. The most famous fictional English market trader was of course Del Boy Trotter, whom the IPKat suspects would not have been a reader of this blog, other than to see what loopholes might exist in IP law. Many thanks to Axel Paul Ringelhann for alerting the IPKat to this referral. The UK government has set a deadline for comments of November 9. The two questions are as follows:
|Not all market traders have offices in |
New York & Paris
Photo: Karen Roe under CC by 2.0
"Is a person with a lease of premises in a market, who provides stalls and pitches on which stalls may be placed to individual market-traders for their use, an intermediary whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right within the meaning of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights?Making Available Right: a paper and an event
"Is it possible to impose on a person with a lease of premises in a market, who provides stalls and pitches on which stalls may be placed to individual market traders for their use, measures, as provided for in Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, under the same conditions as those formulated by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 12 July 2011 in Case C-324/09 L’Oréal and Others v eBay and Others with regard to the imposition of measures on the operators of an online marketplace?"
Do music right-holders who grant licences to digital platforms actually own the right to make the work available? That rather arresting question is at the heart of a paper written by Fiona McGugan. The paper, which is a study of this often-neglected right, is available for download here.
But wait, there's more. An event entitled "Creators' Rights In The Digital Landscape" has been organised in the University of Westminster by the Musictank group (where Fiona is an LLM student) around this topic. It will be held on November 10 at 6:30 pm, immediately following another event of much interest to music licensing fans (see below). Details and booking (for which IPKat readers can claim a discount by using the code CRITDL1115) can be found here.
Music Licensing Masterclass
The University of Westminster is hosting a (free) Masterclass on Music Publishing Agreements, which is the first in a series of three master classes in entertainment law, given by Robert Allan, Associate Fellow of the Centre for Law, Society and Popular Culture. Robert formerly practised as a music talent lawyer and has negotiated contracts on behalf of artists such as Mike Oldfield, Dire Straits and Wham!, so it's safe to say he knows his way around a publishing agreement, and that he can probably teach a trick or two to even the most experienced practitioner.
(For the record, this Kat would like to clarify that the exclamation mark in "Wham!" is part of the band's name, rather than being an indication that he is overcome with hysteria and excitement on recalling the duo.)
As mentioned in the preceding item, the first class is on November 10, and conveniently is at 5:30, allowing IP enthusiasts to indulge themselves royally by attending Robert's masterclass followed by the Musictank event.
The master class series is free with registration, and full details can be found here.
EU Customs Enforcement: the Annual Report is out
Want to know how many articles were detained by customs authorities at the EU borders in 2014 based on IP rights? Which country, with a measly 131 detention cases (compared to Germany's 20,719 cases) nevertheless detained one in seven of all items detained EU-wide? The answers to these questions (35.5 million items, and Malta), along with dozens of other essential facts, statistics and trends from the world of customs enforcement, can be found in the latest Annual Report (PDF here), released today.
For readers short on time, the highlights are outlined in the press release here.
Recent discussions on "lookalike" or "parasitic" packaging, covered in this post by guest Kat Darren Meale, have compelled this Kat to put in her two cents. Lookalikes are symbiotic, not parasitic. Mainstream brands and lookalike private labels co-exist in a balanced environment, not one in which private labels harm mainstream brands.
|Clarke's Clown Fish by Shek Graham|
|Canned Peaches by Mike Wilson,|
The intended use for mason jars..
The argument brands are harmed by lookalike starts with the idea that brands exist in a zero sum game. A classic economic approach to branding is that it is simply a means of jockeying for market share. If this is the case, then one brand's gain in market share is another's loss (explored in this paper by Anocha Aribarg et al.) Lookalike brands would therefore be parasitic. Not convinced.
A zero-sum game is a cynical approach to the economic role of branding. Instead, branding and packaging innovation can grow markets. For example, the markets for bottled water and coffee shops (Starbucks), have grown primarily due to branding and marketing innovations. Theories now recognise that branding and marketing contribute to economic growth and should be considered, controversially, a type of innovation (see this paper by Carol Corrado and Janet Hao.) If branding is growing markets, then lookalikes may simply grow the lower end of the market.
There is also an efficiency argument here - similar packaging for similar products makes shopping more efficient. If packaging is dramatically different for similar products, it will be difficult for the shopper to identify the correct product. Milk is the classic example as there are standard coloured bottle caps to indicate skimmed, semi-skimmed or full-fat milks. In a dystopian yuppie nightmare, wildly different packaging may make it difficult to identify the correct organic, semi-skimmed, grass-fed milk. Similar packaging, and things like category colours, make identification and shopping faster.
|"Milk glass" by Stefan Kühn|
Aha, consumer confusion! Not necessarily. There are all sorts of cool studies on this (great literature review in this report by Phillip Johnson, Johanna Gibson and Jonathan Freeman.) We shop and make decisions quickly. But consumers aren't often 'fooled' by lookalike brands. This fairly cool (eye tracking!) report by Mountainview Learning finds,
"There is no difference between the scores for the key brand when it is placed next to a copycat and when it is placed next to a non copycat product. Interestingly, there is a difference between the key brand and the copycat brand on both metrics, suggesting that participants do no[t] confuse the two at this explicit level, where they have time to make a decision."(Surprise! I've used a paper that supports my arguments.) The report does note that its research fails to address some of the questions it sought to, but this is not uncommon. Natural experiments, Randomised Control Trials (RCTs), surveys and other techniques may not be feasible. It's very difficult to conclusively prove either way the relationship all of these variables. As is often the case in IP, the challenge is comparing the factual to the counterfactual.
|Ruby Red Glitter Comparison by Jennifer A.|
Some sympathy should be retained for brands as private labels put them in an awkward place. Their biggest customers, namely supermarkets, often enjoy a six-month lead between pre-viewing products, and products hitting the shelves - plenty of time to work on the lookalike. Brands enjoy no such similar benefit. It must be frustrating. Pursuing lookalikes means pursuing their biggest customers - no wonder brands prefer government intervention.
Continuing with the biology analogy, the focus should be on the wider ecosystem. Instead of concentrating on the relationship between brands and lookalikes, the whole economy (consumers, retailers, tax revenues, etc.) should be considered. Changes impacting the regulation of lookalikes could significantly expand the strength and scope of trademarks. Darren's post examines (not favourably) arguments that changes may be an inappropriate use of government resources. Dispute is best described as a commercial, not consumer issue. Government interventions could be anti-competitive.
Maintaining a healthy balance between brands and lookalikes, with the considerations of consumers, is important. Brands, and their trade marks, are some of the most valuable IP out there and flourish in the current environment. Lookalikes are not killing off their hosts. Commensal, not parasitic.
Us Kats have an incredibly sophisticated food palette, and not just any slop will satiate our food-based requirements. As such, this Kat enjoys his food-based litigation, especially in the remit of intellectual property. Recipes are one form of literary grandeur that faces Lady Copyright's fickle nature more often than not, and a recent decision in the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was no exception.
|Some tomato-based things can be original|
At first instance the cookbook was seen as not protected by copyright. In her judgment Judge Gaughan saw that "Although copyright protection may extend to a recipe book or cookbook to the extent it is a compilation, the copyright protection afforded to compilations extends to the “order and manner of the presentation of the compilation’s elements, but does not necessarily embrace those elements"". What Ms. Carroll had argued was a copying of the recipes themselves, not their arrangement, which would not fall under the remit of copyright. A copying or use of the recipes would not be copyright infringement, only the expression of those recipes.
The Court of Appeals agreed with Judge Gaughan. The judges saw that, as it has been firmly established, compilation works, such as recipe books, will generally not be protected by copyright unless "...the collection and assembling of pre-existing materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original authorship". Ms. Carroll argued that, as Mr. Moore had conducted his trial-and-error process and the recipes had been arranged and compiled in a very specific way, the book would be original. The Court disagreed, focusing on what is unoriginal rather than what would be original.
|Ginger was not a fan of this new 'fruit'|
Recipes are incredibly difficult to protect, and without much added substance to the recipes themselves they will fail the test of originality. Many chefs and food creators would undoubtedly love legislation allowing the protection of recipes, but it seems highly unlikely that that would be the case any time soon.
Tuesday, 27 October 2015
Without the positive and often critical contributions of our readers, the handy tip-offs, the steady flow of fascinating judicial decisions and the constant emergence of new IP-related problems, this weblog would have been very much the poorer.
In looking forward to clocking up future milestones, the IPKat's team want to assure all readers that there is no question of the Kats resting on their laurels: they will continue to work hard to maintain and improve the standard that has earned the support received so far.
Monday, 26 October 2015
here. The early registration discount expires this coming Friday, 30 October so, if you know you'll be going, why not sign up now and save yourself some money?
|Angela Merkel and a couple of Greek politicians|
|Fancy a little paclitaxel ...?|
November 2014 edition of the Guidelines remains valid. You can check out the Revised Guidelines here (Katpat to Chris Torrero for the link).
Last week's posts lined up just like this:
* The 10 Commandments of IP Dispute Resolution: a Kat speaksIPKat blogmeister Jeremy was invited to speak at a dinner gathering of TIPLO (The Intellectual Property Lawyers' Organisation) in The Old Court Room, Lincoln's Inn. The title of Jeremy's thoughts on the subject: "The 10 Commandments of IP Dispute Resolution". Divine!
* Peace of cheese? Halloumi trade mark application goes into meltdown, but better times may be aheadJeremy writes about the General Court of the European Union's ruling in Joined Cases T‑292/14 and T‑293/14, Republic of Cyprus v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market. That decision is about the registrability as a trade mark of the word "HALLOUMI", which designate a particular type of cheese from the Republic of Cyprus.
* BGW: a pointless reference over a meaningless word?Jeremy reports the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) ruling in Case C-20/14 BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz. The question on which the referring court sought guidance concerned likelihood of confusion between an earlier trade mark and another later sign constituting of the first's initials.
* Passing off at common law and statutory passing off: is there a difference?Most IP law is anchored in long-established legislation, such that the metes and bounds of these laws are subject to the rules of statutory construction in the particular jurisdiction. One of the most notable exceptions is the passing off right under English law, which is still a creature of the common law. Against this framework, an interesting question arises in comparing the scope of the passing off right, when it is based on statute, with the right at common law. Is one more flexible than the other with respect to the subject matters covered; is one better positioned to take into account changing circumstances over time? Over to Neil ...
* Coty v Stadtsparkasse: BGH rules in the wake of CJEU decisionOn past Wednesday, the German Bundesgerichthof ruled that a bank is obliged to disclose the identity of the holder of an account into which the proceeds of the sale of a counterfeit product were deposited to the owner of the counterfeit trade mark. The dispute had led to a referral to the CJEU, which was decided on 16 July 2015 (Case C-580/13 Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg, on which see the Katpost here). Mark tells all.
* The long-arm of Article 3(5) of the proposed EU Trade Secrets DirectiveThe draft EU Trade Secret Directive provides for the prohibition of unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets. It also provides for the removal from the market of "infringing goods", as Mark Ridgway (Allen & Overy) explains in this post.
* Greasecutter not cutting the distinctiveness finishing line says the General CourtNikos notes Case T-610/13, in which the General Court confirmed OHIM’s refusal of the word mark “GREASECUTTER” for goods in Classes 3 and 5.
******************IP in the Fashion Industry Special
* IP in the Fashion Industry 2015: Part 1Here's Jeremy's first post reporting from IP in the Fashion Industry, a conference that took place at London's Holborn Bars. This first part talks of fellow Kat Nicola’s account of the economics of IP in the fashion field, and barrister Stuart Baran, who gave a round-up of some recent trade mark and passing off cases.
* IP in the Fashion Industry 2015: Part 2Next to speak was solicitor Rosie Burbidge, who updated the audience on copyright and design developments in the fashion field. The following speaker was Chris Hoole, who talked about a spin-off topic from the epic litigation between Interflora and Marks & Spencer over keywords [for a flavour of which, check out the IPKat here] -- the concept of "negative matching".
* IP in the Fashion Industry 2015: Part 3Annabelle Gauberti (Crefovi, President of the IALCI) covered employment and labour law, distribution and agency, finance and other issues which are as important as IP in the field of fashion. Solicitor Antony Gold then took the stage, taking a look at the practical side of IP fashion dispute resolution. Finally, Judge Melissa Clarke, a Deputy Judge of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court -- the IPEC -- reminded prospective litigants (and their representatives) of some important things to be taken into account when litigating before IPEC.
AIPPI 46th World IP Congress Special
Annsley was in Rio to attend AIPPI's 46th World IP Congress, to which the following posts are dedicated (three from two weeks ago, the fourth from past week).
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never Too Late 68 [week ending on Sunday 18 October] – Hedge funds, pharma patents and thorny issues: a word on IPRs following Lialda | Battistelli v EPO Enlarged Board | Flynn Pharma Ltd v Drugsrus Ltd and Tenolol Ltd | EPO's special treatment for Elizabeth Hardon | Unjustified threats to sue for IP infringement | Cases T-624/13, T-625/13, 626/13 and 627/13 The Tea Board v OHIM | Brands, trade marks, and the UK Government | Who's down with TPP? | How cool is TMView | The "crowded field" in trade mark law | Genetic patents | US Court of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit and Google Books.
Never Too Late 67 [week ending on Sunday 11 October] – Eponia rumours | Batmobile and copyright | EPO and human rights | Gucci v Guess | NOCN (Formerly National Open College Network) v Open College Network Credit4Learning | New CJEU reference on linking and copyright | Viennese waltz may be the last dance for Board members | Richard Perry v F H Brundle & Others | Safe harbour and the Schrems case | Economics of Domain names | Biodiversity | Roederer v J Garcia Carrion S.A. & Others | pie-based dispute over "Square".
Never Too Late 66 [week ending on Sunday 4 October] – Punitive damages and Enforcement Directive | IFRRO v European Copyright Society | A Decade of JIPLIP, the event | The Global Innovation Index 2015 | South Africa new copyright law | The IPKat and his friends | IP Publishers' and Editors' Lunch 2015 | EPO queue and SMEs | 3D Printing and IP damages | Paywalls and Robin Hoods | The Basmati saga | Greek Court on linking | Glenn Gould and the case for moral rights in sound recordings.
Never too late 65 [week ending on Sunday 27 September] – Scotch whisky battle in far-off China | CJEU loves KitKat | EPO in Case T 0327/13 | UPC opening in London | Happy birthday copyright case | Goldbear saga | Tatoos and copyright | IP in 2015 – Where we are v Where I thought we’d be | PETA litigates over macaque selfie | JIPLIP event.
The General Court has disappointed Enosi
Mastichoparagogon Chiou (The Chios Mastiha Growers Association - EMC) with its
ruling in case T-309/13 (Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou v OHIM / Gaba International Holding GmbH), but the notably successful union of mastic producers,
which put the Greek mastic on the international map, may need to draw certain
lessons from this dispute.
|The mastic tree - where it all begins|