A Legal Review of IP Migrations

See BGB Section 12, which is applied analogously for heraldry, seals and emblems serving a name-like function; Koos (2016), BGB Section 12, recital 118.

See Article 6 of the Paris Convention.

The supplementary protection for creations under competition law provides protection inter alia against counterfeit products; see Sambuc (2016), UWG Section 4 No. 3, recital 4.

https://​www.​denic.​de/​en/​.

Thalmaier (2020), MarkenG Section 15, recital 74.

See UrhG Section 11.

The definition of a work comprises generally of four elements, which are (i) a personal creative act, (ii) perceptible design, (iii) intellectual content, and (iv) creative uniqueness. Bullinger (2019), Section 2, recital 15 et seq.

See UrhG Section 2(1) and 69a et seq. Prior to introduction of UrhG Section 69a, German jurisprudence had placed considerable demands on the subject matter of protection for software. Thanks to UrhG Section 69a(3), even simple programming work is assumed to be protected by copyright, if it is solely an individual creative work in the sense of the copyright “small coin” principle (see footnote below). The characteristics of an individual work are given if there was freedom of design when creating the program (i.e., the task at hand could have been solved by different design possibilities) and this freedom was actually made use of. Only trivial programs are not protected. A special regulation exists for computer programs that are created by persons in employment or service relationships. The author is and remains the individual programmer (the employee or freelancer), whose copyright cannot be transferred in whole. However, by way of a legal presumption of UrhG Section 69b, the employer acquires all property rights to computer programs, which employees “created in the performance of their duties or according to the instructions of their employer” unless the parties have contractually agreed otherwise. UrhG Section 69b implements Article 2(3) of Directive 91/250EEC (Software Directive) and goes much further than the general rule enshrined in UrhG Section 43, according to which the employer only acquires usage rights of the works created that result from employment and service relationships to the extent that they are required for operational or business purposes. UrhG Section 69b, conversely, provides that the employer is in principle entitled to all property rights of programming services covered by the UrhG and thus assigns the property rights to the employer in full.

The term “small coin” (kleine Münze) for creative works was a concept introduced by Alexander Elster in 1921 (Elster, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, 1921, 40) and subsequently adopted by the German courts, e.g., see Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) ruling of November 13, 2013, I ZR 143/12.

Dreier, in: Dreier and Schulze (2018), UrhG Section 87b, recitals 1 et seqq.

UrhG Section 4.

UrhG Section 15 et seq.

Cf. section 44a et seq. UrhG.

Most notably the Revised Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Work, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of February 26, 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market; Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 22, 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society; Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 25, 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works; Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 12, 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property; Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of September 27, 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights; Council Directive 93/83/EEC of September 27, 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission; Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of September 27, 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 23, 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs; Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of March 11, 1996 on the legal protection of databases.

See also Council Directive 87/54/EEC of December 16, 1986 on the legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products; Council Decision 94/824/EC of December 22, 1994 on the extension of the legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products to persons from a Member of the World Trade Organization; Council Decision 96/644/EC of November 11, 1996 on the extension of the legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products to persons from the Isle of Man.

MarkenG Section 3(1).

MarkenG Section 47.

MarkenG Section 26.

MarkenG Section 14(5).

MarkenG Section 14(6).

MarkenG Section 18.

MarkenG Section 19.

https://​www.​wipo.​int/​madrid/​.

The US joined the Madrid System effective October 1, 2004, which was a long-awaited extension of the system, whose basic constitutive treaty, the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, dates back to April 14, 1891.

Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 16, 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

MarkenG Section 5(1); Weiler (2020), MarkenG Section 1, recital 10.

MarkenG Section 5(2).

MarkenG Section 5(3).

Müller (2019), MarkenG Section 5, Recitals 29 et seq.

Weiler (2020), MarkenG Section 5, recital 8.

MarkenG Section 15.

Ingerl and Rohnke (2010).

MarkenG Sections 1(3), 126ff.

MarkenG Section 126(1).

Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 21, 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. This regulation is reflected in MarkenG Section 130 et seq.

Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration (1958).

http://​www.​wipo.​int/​lisbon/​en/​.

See Articles 22–24 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

https://​register.​dpma.​de/​DPMAregister/​Uebersicht?​lang=​en.

Since it is not the filing of an application, only successful registration of a design that results in design protection, according to DesignG Section 19 the term during which protection is actually granted is 25 years minus the time needed for the application to be processed.

Failure to pay ends the protection term, according to DesignG Section 28(3).

DesignG Section 38.

http://​www.​wipo.​int/​hague/​en/​.

Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of December 12, 2001 on Community designs.

Klett et al. (2008), Intellectual Property Law in Germany, Part 1: Protection of Intellectual Property Rights.

The DPMA states an average duration of “2 to 2.5 years” on its homepage at https://​www.​dpma.​de/​patent/​faqs/​index.​html#a9.

The requirement for “inventive activity” aims to ensure a certain minimum level of inventiveness and rules out anything that would have been an obvious solution to a given problem for an average craftsman or expert, Schoenen (2017), Section 38, recital 25 et seq.

The invention must also be described in sufficient detail as to allow an expert to reproduce it, Schoenen (2017), Section 38, recital 13.

The full list comprises discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods, aesthetic creations, schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, for playing games or doing business, programs for computers, and for presentations of information. Special provisions on the patentability of biotechnological inventions, in particular those relating to the human body and the human genome, were inserted in 2005 (PatentG Section 1a) after intensive discussions and roughly five years later than the deadline set by Article 15(1) of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 6, 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.

Schoenen (2017), Section 38, recital 12.

Schoenen (2017), Section 38, recital 7.

PatentG Section 16.

PatentG Section 20(1)(2).

PatentG Section 139 et seq.

Osterrieth and Thums (2019), Article 79 margin number 42.

http://​www.​wipo.​int/​pct/​en/​.

Jesse and Bröcher, In: Däbritz et al. (2009), Patente, Teil I. Allgemeine Grundlagen des Patentwesens recitals 165–177.

Goebel and Engel (2015), GebrMG Section 1, recital 13 et seq.; BGH GRUR 2006, 842.

German Federal Supreme Court, order of June 20, 2006, X ZB 27/05 (BGHZ 168, 142).

Mes (2020), GebrMG Section 1, recital 4.

GebrMG Sections 1(2) and (3). Only the listed items “as such” are excluded from utility model protection, which leads to some uncertainties, e.g., regarding excluded biotechnological inventions, Goebel and Engel, In: Benkard, Patentgesetz, 11th edition 2015, GebrMG Section 1, recital 22 et seq.

GebrMG Section 11.

Ann and Hauck (2014), Part I recital 273. On the EU level a relatively narrow definition of know-how was contained in Article 1(1)(i) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 772/2004 of April 27, 2004 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of technology transfer agreements, which however is no longer in force.

Ann and Hauck (2014), Part I recital 274.

While the UWG is, in its protection of trade and industrial secrets, basically applicable to any person, more specific provisions apply, for example, to the managing directors of a GmbH (GmbHG Section 85), members of the board of directors, or the supervisory board, or auditors of a German public company (AktG Section 404), auditors of German corporations (HGB Section 333). See also Section 203 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB). Legend: GmbHG – GmbH Gesetz, Limited Liability Companies Act; AktG – Aktiengesetz, Stock Corporation Act; HGB – Handelsgesetzbuch, German Commercial Code.

In addition, UWG Section 18 penalizes the divulgence of models or instructions of a technical nature, particularly drawings, prototypes, patterns, segments, or formulas.

For a detailed overview see: Stier and Hasselblatt (2016), UWG Section 17, recital 84 et seqq.

BGH GRUR 2006, 1044, 1046 recital 19; BGH GRUR 1955, 424, 425; RGZ 149, 329, 334; BVerfG MMR 2006, 375, 376; BGH GRUR 2009, 603, 604.

Stier and Hasselblatt (2016), UWG Section 17, recital 9.

Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 8, 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure.

Trade Secrets Directive, Article 19.

EU Trade Secrets Directive Article (2)(1)(c).

Hacker, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), PatG Section 15, recitals 20 et seqq.

Hacker, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), PatG Section 15, recital 18.

Hug and Gaugenrieder (2013), Section 7, recitals 42–61.

Hacker, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), PatG Section 15, recitals 34 et seqq.

For details please refer to EPC Article 72 in connection with EPC rule 22.

Hacker, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), PatG Section 15, recitals 34 et seqq.; Keukenschrijver, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), GebrMG Section 22, recital 4.

Hacker, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), PatG Section 15, recital 32; Keukenschrijver, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), GebrMG Section 22, recital 4.

Keukenschrijver, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), PatG Section 30(35) et seqq.; GebrMG Section 22(4).

Keukenschrijver, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), ArbnErfG Section 7(2); Bartenbach and Volz (2010), recital 168.

Keukenschrijver, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), ArbnErfG Section 7(2).

Pahlow (2014), Section 27 Recitals 3 et seqq.

Schennen, In: Eisenführ and Schennen (2017), Article 17 recitals 18 et seqq.

Pahlow (2014), Section 27, recitals 3 et seqq.; Schennen, In: Eisenführ and Schennen (2017), Article 17, recitals 18 et seqq.

Previously known as Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).

Pahlow (2014), Section 27, recital 12, Section 28, recitals 1 et seqq.; Schennen, In: Eisenführ and Schennen (2017), Article 17, recitals 22 et seqq.

Pahlow (2014), Section 27, recital 12.

Schennen, In: Eisenführ and Schennen, Article 17, recitals 22 et seqq.

Schennen, In: Eisenführ and Schennen, Article 17, recitals 22 et seqq.

Pahlow (2014), Section 27 recital 12.

Schulze, In: Dreier and Schulze (2018), UrhG Section 11, recitals 1 et seqq.

Dreier, in: Dreier and Schulze (2018), UrhG Section 43, recitals 18 et seqq.

Restraints on competition need to duly and carefully take the applicable antitrust laws into account. However, for intragroup agreements between affiliated companies, the antitrust laws typically not apply, due to the fact that the affiliates are not in competition. However, minority shareholdings need to be given particular attention.

Hacker, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), PatG Section 15, recitals 51 et seqq.; GebrMG Section 22(5).

Hacker, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), PatG Section 15, recitals 51 et seqq.

Keukenschrijver, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), PatG Section 139, recitals 24 et seqq.

Keukenschrijver, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), PatG Section 139, recitals 24 et seqq.

Keukenschrijver, In: Busse and Keukenschrijver (2016), PatG Section 139, recitals 24 et seqq.

Pahlow (2014), Section 29 recitals 5 et seqq.

Schennen, In: Eisenführ and Schennen, Article 22, recitals 46 et seqq.

Pahlow (2014), Section 29 recital 24.

Pahlow (2014), Section 30 recitals 69 et seqq.

Schulze, In: Dreier and Schulze (2018), Section 31 recitals 22–23.

Schulze, In: Dreier and Schulze (2018), Section 31 recitals 22–23.

Schulze, In: Dreier and Schulze (2018), Section 31 recitals 22–23.

Schulze, In: Dreier and Schulze (2018), Section 31 recitals 22–23, 150.

Specht, In: Dreier and Schulze (2018), Section 97 recitals 16 et seqq.

Specht, In: Dreier and Schulze (2018), Section 97 recitals 16 et seqq.

Specht, In: Dreier and Schulze (2018), Section 97 recitals 16 et seqq.,

See Obergfell (2015), recitals 6.1050 et seq.

Immenga et al. (2014), Section 1 recitals 111–116; Calliess et al. (2016), Article 101 recitals 80–82.

In practice, lists are accompanied by an abstract definition serving as a “catch all clause” for cases where the list is incomplete. From a legal perspective, it is also feasible to simply provide for a transfer of “any and all” IP rights held by a legal entity at the time of transfer, in which case no lists or (detailed) abstract definitions are needed.