Lena Marcinoska-Boulangé | In Principle

In computer games and apps, the use of images of nature, like mountain streams, does not raise doubts in terms of copyright. But the use of architectural structures, such as bridges, monuments or buildings, can be problematic, because they are generally regarded as “works” for copyright purposes.

Lego figures are a toy for all. They develop not only the imagination, but also the line of European case law. Like Rubik’s Cube, they are reversing the tide of refusal to grant trademark protection to the shapes of products.

Contracts are signed expecting the worst. The provisions should be precisely formulated, particularly when a failure to be explicit can lead to application of rigid statutory provisions instead. When a dispute arises, the court’s interpretation of the parties’ intent may differ from the literal wording of the contract.

They have much in common. Both of these creative toys develop dexterity, logical thinking skills and imagination. But the European Court of Justice has held that the shape of Lego bricks is determined solely by their functional characteristics, while the EU’s General Court has found the opposite to be true of the shape of Rubik’s Cube. In practice this means that a graphic presentation of a Lego brick cannot be a trademark, but a graphic presentation of Rubik’s Cube can.

It seems the OHIM register of industrial designs won’t be fattening up on baked goods anymore.

The “War of Tanks” case reveals certain dangers in the “freemium” model for startups.

In the area of ground services, there is a battle between the interests of airports, groundhandling agents, staff and consumers. Any legal changes in this field typically represent a compromise between the interests of numerous stakeholders.