The purpose of the present article is a brief and general outline of the new legal framework in Greece about the state aid scheme for the production of audiovisual works in Greece based on the incentive of a cash rebate of the 25% of the eligible costs of the production incurred within the Greek territory.


The law 4487/2017 inter alia provides proceedings for a financial state aid that intend to encourage the production of audiovisual works in Greece by a cash rebate of 25% of the eligible costs incurred in Greece. The provisions of the law were specified by the joint ministerial decision 923/23.03.2018 (published in Government’s Gazette vol. B no. 1138/28.03.2018). The law 4487/2017 has been issued under the provisions of the EU Regulation 651/2014 (Block Exemption Regulation) that has declared several types of state aid as compatible with the common market and the EU law according to the articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (the Regulation in article 54 includes specific provisions for aid schemes for audiovisual works). Therefore, the provisions of the Regulation are also applicable. Continue Reading

Fast-track trademark and patent registration has become available in Russia

Recently Rospatent officially launched a service for fast-track registration of trademarks and patents.

The fast-track option has become available for those applicants who ordered and payed an official trademark search report in Rospatent in respect of all 45 Nice classes.

The official fee for this service is EUR 1 500 (RUR 94 400), the term is 10 calendar days. Continue Reading

Can Inventions Related to Cannabis be Protected?

Suppose that you want to obtain a patent for an invention related to your cannabis business.  What if the invention is a device for extracting oils, an ornamental design for a new vaporizer, or a new breed of cannabis plant?  Should you attempt to patent your invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office?  Can you obtain a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office?  The answer is YES! if the invention meets certain conditions for patentability.

To obtain a U.S. patent, three conditions for patentability have to be met under 35 U.S.C. Sections 101, 102, and 103.  Under 35 U.S.C. 101, whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.  Since almost all inventions are useful such as the device, the ornamental design, or asexual reproduction of non-tuber plants, this is an easy condition to meet.  Under 35 U.S.C. Section 102, a person shall be entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.  However, there are exceptions.  For example, a disclosure of an invention made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention.  Under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, a patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.  Thus, if the invention related to cannabis is useful, novel, and unobvious, a patent may be obtained. Continue Reading

Fair is foul, and foul is fair: How TV Eyes May Help Us See Through The Blurred Lines & Fog Around Fair Use

First Witch:     When shall we three meet again/In thunder, lightning, or in rain?

Second Witch:  When the hurlyburly’s done,/When the battle’s lost and won.

Third Witch:    That will be ere the set of sun.


ALL:                 Fair is foul, and foul is fair:/Hover through the fog and filthy air.

[MacBeth, Act 1, Scene 2]

What constitutes, or should constitute, “fair use” is an ongoing issue in copyright.  Indeed, it has been the focus of postings by this author about books and movies.  As the most recent of those postings noted in conclusion, we continue to struggle with “balanc[ing] the interests” of the newcomers wishing to transform the old into a newer art against “those of the original authors and artists to comfortably control their works.  The debate and contests continue.”  And so we ended there with a promise for a next blog to continue the process of examining the fair use issue—and we are happy to report that the Second Circuit’s February 27, 2018 decision in Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc. goes a long way in helping us differentiate fair from foul in this area and in lifting some of the fog seemingly inherent in fair use tests that eschew bright-line rules.  Thus, it is a useful ruling for lawyers in the United States to review, as well as in the EU where the issue of fair use is at much earlier evolutionary point. Continue Reading

Copyright ownership in workplace. The example of Greece.

Nowadays, intellectual property rights constitute very important assets of the companies. Therefore, in order to avoid conflicts and uncertainty, Greek legislation offers specific provisions concerning the ownership of inventions, designs and the copyright on a work created in the course of an employment relationship. These provisions could be of interest of any company operating in Greece and governed by Greek Law.

Aim of this article is to present the main aspects of copyright ownership within the scope of an employment agreement. The main legislative document is the Greek Copyright Law, Law no 2121/1993 “For the Protection of Copyright and Neighboring rights”, as it is enforced today. Continue Reading

Trade Secrets as Part of Your IP Portfolio: The Case of Col. Sanders

Trade secrets, together with patents, trademarks, and copyrights, are one of the four main types of intellectual property.  Unlike the three other types of IP, trade secrets are never made public.  Trademarks and service marks are obtainable only through public use that creates an association between the mark and the origin of specific goods or services in the minds of the consumer.  Copyrights are generally agnostic to publicity, but most copyrighted material is shown publicly in some form.  While public disclosure before filing a patent application can destroy your patent rights, if your patent application is allowed it will always be made public.  Public disclosure of your trade secret will destroy it – they’re like vampires, they live in the shadows and any exposure to light will kill them.

So how do these four different types of intellectual property interact?  Let’s look at KFC as a case study.  Many people around the world are familiar with the initials ‘K-F-C’ and the character Colonel Harland Sanders.  The initials ‘K-F-C’ and the image of Colonel Sanders are both trademarks registered by KFC Corporation with the USPTO.  These are classic trademarks – most consumers know and associate KFC® and the Colonel Sanders character with the chain of friend chicken restaurants owned by Yum! Brands. Continue Reading

Registration of Mark “THEZARA” for Motel Services Invalidated Based on the Mark “ZARA” for Clothing – A Case Study

Representing our client Inditex S.A. (“Inditex”), owner of the famous fashion brand “ZARA,” Lee International obtained a favorable decision in its invalidation action against the registered mark “THEZARA” for motel and hotel services.


Lee International filed an invalidation action against the registered mark “THEZARA” for “motel, hotel,” etc., on behalf of Inditex.  The invalidation action argued that the mark “THEZARA” was filed in bad faith to take advantage of the fame of Inditex’s mark “ZARA,” which is well-known as a specific source indicator to the general public, both within and outside of Korea. Continue Reading

Success in the battle for Stolichnaya and Moskovskaya

bkp partners Martin Reinisch and Georg Fellner have obtained a favorable judgment by an Austrian Appellate Court for bkp client Spirits International (SPI Group) confirming the latter’s rights in the iconic Stolichnaya and Moskovskaya trademarks in Austria.

The favorable judgment has been rendered in a lengthy, complex court proceeding which is the Austrian part of a multi-jurisdictional dispute between our client and a Russian Federation state enterprise (FKP Soyuzplodoimport) regarding the ownership in these vodka trademarks. The proceeding has so far been pending for more than 13 years and might even still last a bit longer. Continue Reading

FTC Announces First COPPA Action Involving Connected Toys

A Hong Kong-based electronic toy manufacturer and its U.S. subsidiary agreed to pay the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) $650,000 to settle allegations that they violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting personal information from children without providing appropriate notice and consent, and by failing to take reasonable steps to secure the data that they collected. Notably, this is the FTC’s first COPPA case involving connected toys, but it may not be its last, as connected toys continue to play a more prominent role in children’s lives.


The companies, VTech Electronics Limited, a Hong Kong corporation, and Illinois-based VTech Electronics North America, LLC (VTech), develop products and services for children, including electronic learning products (ELPs) and online games available through their ELPs or the Internet. The companies also develop and operate the Learning Lodge Navigator online service, which functions similarly to an app store and allows customers to download the companies’ child-directed apps, games, e-books and other online content. By November 2015, the FTC asserted that approximately 2.25 million parents in the United States had registered and created accounts with Learning Lodge for nearly 3 million children. Continue Reading

Tomorrow Is Yesterday: Today’s Cases Boldly Going Where Our Blogs Have Gone Before

Sometimes blogging topics are hard to come by.  It is often difficult because, as a sage once noted in discussing the search for The Ultimate Computer, one wants to do one’s best, but something like creativity “doesn’t work on an assembly line basis. … You can’t simply say, today I will be brilliant,” insightful, informative or even mildly amusing.  But other times topics materialize right before your eyes, as if dropped on your desk by fate or chance, and then they seemingly write themselves, without either assembly lines or much hard work.

We report today on Dr. Seuss Enterprises LP v. Comicmix LLC, et al., a case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, raising issues of trademark and copyright law, and that Court’s December 7, 2017 decision denying defendants’ motion to dismiss.  That motion sought to dismiss claims that defendants’ mashup of Dr. Seuss and Star Trek in a book to be entitled Oh! The Places That You’ll Boldly Go infringed plaintiff’s trademarks and copyrights.  Given that we have written previously about the intellectual property law issues arising in matters involving the Star Trek franchise and the Seuss canon, a chance to write about a case that combines them seems pre-ordained, and for once the struggle to settle upon a topic was not so unsettling.  And, in our ongoing mission to relate some of these US law issues to a wider audience, we will revisit some previously-discussed UK alternatives as well as looking at new arguments that fine support in the writings of a Canadian academic. Continue Reading