According to news sources, the Dusseldorf Regional Court has refused a request for preliminary injunction filed by Nestlé seeking to stop competitors from selling capsules that fit its Nespresso™ coffee makers in Germany. The court reportedly ruled that Nestlé’s patent for the machine does not extend to capsules sold at a lower price by two other Swiss firms. Defendants Ethical Coffee and Betron market their products in a number of European countries as “usable for Nespresso machines.” The rival capsules are about a third less expensive than the Nestlé capsules. The company, which has aggressively defended its Nespresso™ business—worth $3.6 billion worldwide—can apparently either ask the court for a full civil-trial process or appeal the ruling. See The New York Times, Associated Press and Bloomberg, August 16, 2012.
Category Archives Global Courts
According to a news source, putative class actions have been filed against Strauss Group Ltd. and Tnuva Food Industries Ltd., alleging that their yogurt products, marketed as “yogurt with granola nuts” and “yogurt with granola fruit, “ respectively, mislead consumers because they contain so little nuts or fruit. Seeking NIS 72 million (US$17.8 million) from Strauss, which has a 42 percent market share, and NIS 142.5 million (US$35.3 million) from Tnuva, the petitioners reportedly claim that the products should be labeled as “flavored” with the ingredients. See Middle East North Africa Financial Network, August 12, 2012.
The World Trade Organization Appellate Body has partially rejected the U.S. Office of the Trade Representative’s (USTR’s) appeal in a dispute with Canada and Mexico over “country of origin” labeling (COOL) for beef and pork products. After WTO’s Dispute Settlement Panel ruled in November 2011 that specific provisions of the U.S. COOL program provided less favorable treatment to Canadian and Mexican livestock, USTR appealed the ruling on the ground that COOL does not impose unfavorable treatment of imported products because it “requires meat derived from both imported and domestic livestock to be labeled under the exact same set of circumstances.” Additional details about the appeal appear in Issue 433 of this Update. In upholding the Dispute Panel’s assessment, the WTO Appellate Body agreed that “the COOL measure treats imported livestock differently than domestic livestock,” in part because it creates “an incentive in favor of processing exclusively domestic livestock and a…
The European Union (EU) General Court has affirmed a ruling of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and dismissed the application of a beverage company to register “Royal Shakespeare” as a word mark for its scotch whiskey. Jackson Int’l Trading Co. Kurt D. Brühl GmbH & Co. KG v. OHIM, Case T-60/10 (Gen. Ct., decided July 6, 2012). According to the court, the Royal Shakespeare Co. had registered “Royal Shakespeare Company” three years before Jackson International sought to register its mark, the theater company’s mark has a reputation before the public at large and not among an elite as argued by Jackson International, and the beverage maker’s use of the mark would take “unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.”
The World Trade Organization (WTO) recently agreed to a convene a dispute settlement panel to investigate India’s restrictions on the importation of U.S. poultry, eggs and other agriculture products purportedly due to concerns over avian influenza. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) apparently requested the panel after failing to resolve the dispute during an April 16-17, 2012, consultation with the Indian government, which has restricted the importation of various agricultural products from “those countries reporting Notifiable Avian Influenza (both Highly Pathogenic Notifiable Avian Influenza and Low Pathogenic Notifiable Avian Influenza).” According to USTR, however, these restrictions violate several provisions of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement as well as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, in part “because India’s avian influenza measures are not applied only to the extent necessary to protect human or animal life or health, are not based upon scientific principles, and are maintained without sufficient…
The European Union (EU) Court of Justice has affirmed a General Court ruling that confectioner Lindt & Sprüngli, AG cannot register certain three-dimensional shapes, their colored wrappings or ribbons as European Community trademarks. Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Mkt. (Trademarks and Designs), Case No. C-98/11 P (E.C.J., decided May 24, 2012). Additional details about the case appear in Issue 376 of this Update. The mark was sought for the shape of a sitting rabbit with a red ribbon. According to the court, the shape was “typical” for chocolate rabbits and was thus “devoid of any distinctive character.” The court also found that the gold-foil wrapping and small bells and bows embellishments were “common elements in the case of chocolate animals.” The court further ordered the chocolatier to pay the costs of the appeal.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) has agreed, in part, with the European Commission’s challenge to requirements imposed by the Dutch government on contractors providing organic and fair trade products in its automatic coffee machines. EC v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, No. C-368/10 (E.C.J., decided May 10, 2012). According to the Court, government requirements for the award of contracts may be based on environmental or social criteria, but the criteria must be clear and the government must allow proof “that a product satisfies those criteria by all appropriate means.” The Court also held that “all the conditions and detailed rules of the award procedure must be drawn up in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner in the notice or contract documents.” To the extent that the Dutch requirements fell short of these standards, the Court found that the government failed to fulfill its obligations under the award of…
An Australian court has reportedly awarded $8 million to the family of a girl who allegedly ate a Salmonella-contaminated chicken product from a KFC restaurant and became critically ill with organ system failures, septic shock, severe brain injury, and spastic quadriplegia. Samaan v. Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd., No. 2006/20457 (NSW Sup. Ct., decided April 4, 2012). The court exhaustively explores inconsistencies in the testimony and evidence concerning the source of the chicken that allegedly caused the injury, but concludes that the KFC “Twister” product “was the only common meal to the affected family members (and no others) and it was consumed within the incubation period for Salmonella poisoning.” According to the court, many of the inconsistencies could be attributed to language and translation issues given that the parents and one child were born in Sudan and were native Arabic speakers. Other inconsistencies could be attributed to concerns over the…
French maize growers and seed companies have reportedly brought an appeal before the nation’s highest court seeking to overturn the French government’s temporary moratorium on a strain of genetically modified (GM) maize. The government action was taken in response to the court’s decision to annul a previous moratorium after finding that it lacked justification. In a joint statement, the plaintiffs said, “This restriction does not rely on any serious scientific element, and maize producers, hit by (insects), sustain real financial damage.” France has also reportedly requested that the European Commission suspend authorization to sow the GM maize, the only one approved for cultivation in the European Union, contending that scientific research shows that it poses “significant risks for the environment.” See Reuters, March 29, 2012.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has appealed a ruling made by a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel against the United States in a dispute with Mexico and Canada over country-of-origin labeling (COOL) laws for beef and pork products. Responding to complaints filed by Canada and Mexico, WTO’s Dispute Settlement Panel ruled in November 2011 that although the United States has the right to require COOL regulations, specific requirements enacted in 2008 such as those calling for segregation of imported livestock before processing provide less favorable treatment to Canadian and Mexican livestock. The ruling was covered in Issue 419 of this Update. According to the appeal, USTR found several errors in the panel’s ruling and contends, among other issues, that its COOL labeling does not impose unfavorable treatment of imported products because it “requires meat derived from both imported and domestic livestock to be labeled under the exact…
