• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

No copyright protection to taste in the EU

13. November 2018

Taste cannot be protected by copyright in the EU,  the European Court of Justice ruled today. It is an important judgement in the area of the European protectability of fragrance and taste, which has so far been handled very differently in the EU.

The European interest in this issue is great: the French, Italian and British governments have submitted statements in this case, as has the European Commission.

The Background: Dutch Dip Heksenkaas

Taste DipThe background to today’s ruling by the European Court of Justice is the allegation of infringement of copyright in the taste of a spread dip with cream cheese and fresh herbs known as Dutch “Heksenkaas”. The plaintiff Levola Hengelo B.V. and the defendant Smilde Foods B.V. are Dutch food manufacturers. It is not surprising that, accordingly, it is a Dutch court which wishes to have the protectability of taste clarified by the highest European court. Because the Netherlands has always shown itself to be open-minded to regard fragrance and taste as protectable, while France and Germany have so far ruled out protectability – we reported (Protecting Scent Trademarks (2): how to present a fragrance?).

Is taste a work in the sense of copyright?

The referring court essentially wanted to know whether the taste of a foodstuff constitutes a “work” and can be protected by copyright under Directive 2001/29. In this context, the ECJ also had to clarify whether the term “works of literature, art and science” – and “regardless of the nature and form of the expression” in Art. 2 para. 1 of the Berne Convention refers only to optical or acoustically perceptible creations.

Not every original object is a “work”

The term “work” is an autonomous concept of Union law and Member States are not allowed to provide for further or different standards in this context, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) clarified. A work must meet the criterion of originality, but this does not mean that any object meeting this criterion is automatically considered to be protected by copyright. However, the Directive on “literary, artistic and scientific works” had been extended by international agreements on new topics, for example also in the field of digital works such as computer programs by the WIPO Copyright Treaty. However, the taste of a foodstuff cannot be associated with any of the protected “works”.

“The WIPO Copyright Treaty expressly states that computer programs are protected as works of literature within the meaning of Art. 2 of the Berne Convention. Article 5 of this Treaty provides that databases in any form which, by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations are also protected as such in this way.” (quoted from Opinion of General Advocat Wathelet)

Advocate General sees recipe as idea and not eligible for protection

Advocate General Wathelet recommended that taste should not be placed under copyright protection. Copyright protection extends to independent forms of expression and not to thoughts, processes, methods or mathematical concepts as such, the Advocate General clarified. Therefore, although the form of expression of a recipe could be protected by copyright – if it were independent – copyright does not protect the recipe as such (the idea). This distinction is called “idea/expression dichotomy”. The Advocate General also pointed out that independent forms of expression must be recognisable and presentable with sufficient precision and objectivity. However, an exact and objective identification of taste or smell is not yet possible.

Moreover, it is not the medium on or in which the work is fixed that is the subject of copyright, but the work itself. Therefore, the possible perishability of a foodstuff as such is not decisive – however, this also stands in the way of precise and objective identification. Above all, however, taste is primarily a subjective taste experience, an objective classification of which is not possible, and therefore it cannot be protected under copyright law.

ECJ excludes taste from copyright protection

tasteIn today’s ruling, the ECJ concurred with this assessment. Directive 2001/29 precludes copyright protection of the taste of a foodstuff. Like the Advocate General, the ECJ made it clear that protected objects must be known clearly and precisely – for authorities and competitors alike. However, such a representation is not possible for taste. Unlike, for example, a literary, visual, cinematic or musical work, which is a precise and objective expression, the identification of the taste of a foodstuff is essentially based on subjective and variable taste experiences, since they depend in particular on factors related to the person who tries the product, such as age, dietary preferences and consumption habits, as well as the environment or context in which the product is tried. Therefore, the ECJ does not consider the taste of a food to be a “work” within the meaning of Directive 2001/29. The intellectual creation, on the other hand, cannot – as the Advocate General had already pointed out – fall under copyright protection, nor can procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.

The preceding dispute between Levola and Smilde will continue on the basis of this judgment. By judgment of 10 June 2015, the Dutch court in Gelderland dismissed Levola’s action as unfounded. The reason given was not the (lack of) protectability of a taste, but the fact that Levola had not named which components gave Levola’s Streichdip its own original character and personal stamp.

No copyright- what about trademark protection?

Copyright for taste and fragrance can hardly be enforced in the EU after today’s ruling. As a result, the focus has shifted to possible trademark protection in this area, especially since the new EU Trademark Regulation No. 207/2009 of October 2017 theoretically permits such a trademark application. In the USA, it is generally possible to protect a fragrance as a trademark anyway. It was not until June 2018 that the toy manufacturer Hasbro received the fragrance trademark rights from the US Patent Office (USPTO) for the unique fragrance of its “Play-Doh” (Info Blog: Protecting Scent Trademarks (1): Practically possible in the US – Rather difficult in the EU).

Would you also like to protect your brand or trademark?

Then please do not hesitate to contact us. Our patent attorneys and attorneys at law are experienced and highly qualified in all areas of intellectual property law, both nationally and internationally.

Request your call-back without any obligations!

CAT-call_en

 

Sources:

EU:C:2018:899 Levola Hengelo

Picture:

DrawsAndCooks /pixabay.com / CCO License | Einladung_zum_Essen /pixabay.com / CCO License  

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconCopyright,  International Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law Tag iconBerne Convention,  copyright,  copyright protection,  Dip,  ECJ,  EU,  European protectability of fragrance and taste,  food,  Heksenkaas,  Levola Hengelo,  perceptible creations,  Smilde Foods,  taste,  Union,  WIPO Copyright Treaty,  work

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Copyright

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.