Newsletter February 2010

Transcription

1 Newsletter February 2010 Intellectual Property A further step towards an EU Patent and a unified European Patent Court system - Council agrees on basic guidelines Copyright an end to the buy-out? Judgement of the European Court of Justice of on the trade mark PAGO?.. 5 Google-Books settlement nears conclusion The use of a trade mark in such a way as to preserve the rights, and evidence thereof European Court of Justice decision on information database Commercial Law Information on the Commercial Register, Company Register and Federal Gazette From annual accounts must be submitted electronically Further Topics Introducing our younger associates

2 A further step towards an EU Patent and a unified European Patent Court system - Council agrees on basic guidelines On 4 December 2009 the Council of the European Union agreed on the fundamental elements of a new European patent system. As well as the unified EU patent, a joint European Patent Court should be created. This would bring the EU into new legal territory. For the first time a pan-european civil court would be created which would have to take account of the principles of the various legal systems of the member states. This new court (European and EU Patents Court (EEUPC) is to be responsible for judging infringements and validity not only of EU patents 1, but also of European patents in accordance with the EPC. In this article we would like to give you a brief overview of the structure of the EEUPC and finish with an outlook addressing certain aspects in brief. 1. The court of first instance - central division and local or regional divisions The court of first instance consists of a central division and several local or regional divisions. The distribution of patent infringement cases within the EU varies widely. The country with by far the most cases is Germany (approx. 1,000 per annum, compared with a total of approx. 2,000 cases across Europe). The local and regional divisions should take account of this differing frequency, with a member state only justifying a local division if it has more than 50 infringement cases per annum. No more than three local divisions may be established by any one member state. This clause affects the patent courts in Germany in particular. For Germany, the locations under consideration are Düsseldorf, Munich, Mannheim and recently Hamburg. Hamburg has even established a second patent litigation division in order to increase its chances of a local division. If any individual state does not have the required number of domestic cases, they may be combined under regional divisions. Consideration is being given to a regional division for the Benelux states, possibly also involving the UK and Portugal. A division such as this could attract many international disputes which previously would have been dealt with in Germany, particularly since proceedings would probably be conducted in English. Where a member state does not have its own local division and is not involved in a regional division, the central division will always be responsible. a) Jurisdiction of the local and regional divisions The local and regional divisions are responsible in the first instance for cases of actual or threatened patent infringement, interim injunctions or claims for compensation or damages, as well as for counterclaims for revocation of the patent under dispute. With regard to local jurisdiction, cases may be brought before the division with jurisdiction for the of the defendant domicile or initiated in the place where the infringement occurred or threatens to occur. Accordingly, an infringement case could be dealt with by a German regional division under the terms which previously gave the German patent litigation divisions competence. b) Jurisdiction of the central division The central division has jurisdiction inter alia for judgements declaring the revocation of a patent and for compulsory licences. c) Composition of the divisions - pool of judges Three judges are appointed to the courts of first instance. In local and regional divisions, two judges are from the state represented by the 1 Following the Treaty of Lisbon, according to which the European Community became the European Union with effect from and now has a legal personality, the Community patent plan was renamed the EU patent in accordance with the draft order that was also passed. Newsletter February

3 local chamber, or in the case of regional divisions from the countries in question. The third judge is appointed to the division from a pool of judges made up of judges specialising in patent disputes with appropriate legal or technical qualifications. If the local or regional divisions also decide to deliver a judgement regarding the validity of the patent in suit, they must also select a technical judge from the pool of judges. The central division is made up of two legally-qualified judges, and one qualified in the relevant technical area, from the pool of judges. d) Representation The parties should not only be able to be represented by lawyers, but also by European patent attorneys with an additional qualification, the content of which is to be specified in more detail (known as the European Patent Litigation Certificate). Doubts have been expressed about sole representation by a patent attorney, as a patent dispute generally involves solving all manner of general procedural and substantive problems, which typically form part of the education of lawyers. A conference of European judges therefore supported the exclusive representation by lawyers (cf. Proceedings of Venice II, GRUR 2007, 583, 587). This only took the draft document into account insofar as the participation of a patent attorney may be indicated, even if the parties are represented by a lawyer. Otherwise it would not have been possible to reimburse these costs to the parties concerned. 2. Transition period In principle, the draft document envisages a transition period of maximum five years from when the agreement on the EEUPC comes into effect, during which proceedings concerning infringement or revocation of a European patent will continue to be brought before the national courts. The draft makes it possible to select the previous system for existing patent rights ( opt-out model): the patent applicant or proprietor may determine whether the national authorities or courts should remain competent in respect of their patent. This decision must be notified no later than one month prior to the expiry of the transition period. 3. Outlook a) A slow process Despite the agreement, some central questions are still outstanding, such as the matter of translation of an EU patent, which the Council would now like to address in a separate act. The solution to this problem is not yet in sight. Owing to legal uncertainties regarding the harmonisation of the regulations, the parties concerned are still waiting for the legal report from the ECJ. The commission also expects that the new regulations will not come into force for some years, even if agreement on the outstanding issues is reached quickly. b) Differences compared to German proceedings From the point of view of the lawyer or patent attorney acting in a German patent infringement case, proceedings before the EEUPC will give rise to numerous changes. aa) Main differences between the codes of civil procedure of the member states The EEUPC is the first pan-european civil court. The individual European codes of procedure vary fundamentally, however, in certain principles. It will be years before those involved have agreed on joint rules and principles of interpretation. There are also fundamental differences with regard to the German Code of Civil Procedure. Whilst the German Code of Civil Procedure still prohibits discovery of evidence, even after inspection proceedings have been introduced in accordance with the enforcement guideline, a seizure of counterfeit goods in accordance with French law enables the patent proprietor, for example, to have considerable access to information belonging to its potential opponent. In accordance with the French interpretation, the seizure of counterfeit goods is a right of the intellectual property holder, which is naturally used to supply him with the necessary information to prove infringement. A degree of probability of infringement is not necessary, in contrast with German law. bb) Preparatory hearing by a single judge Another example of a fundamental difference lies in the preparatory verbal hearing in which only the rappor- Newsletter February

4 teur and the parties participate. It is not obligatory for the other members of the panel of judges to participate at preparatory level. The extent to which the other judges participate (if at all) in the forming of opinion shall only become evident with experience. At any rate, the case is guided to a substantial degree by the rapporteur in this type of preparatory hearing. Since the other members of the panel of judges may not know the content of this preliminary verbal hearing, the arrangement is conducted by the rapporteur de facto according to something approaching the principle of the single judge. The practice of patent litigation divisions in Germany takes this into account and they generally do not transfer any cases to a single judge. The preparatory verbal hearing also brings with it further time and cost expenditure. cc) More intensive preparation of evidence Another essential difference lies in the preparation of the evidence. While German law, for example, does not accept written witness statements, the code of procedure to date provides that witnesses must set down their statements in writing and submit the written statements to the court. It is therefore to be feared that this factor, too, will make proceedings before the EEUPC more time-consuming and expensive. c) Doubtful cost savings for medium-sized German companies The requirement for a unified patent court was justified inter alia by the argument that the parties would not have to initiate proceedings in different countries, as it is the case at present. The aim in particular was to reduce the burden of patent infringement dispute costs for small and medium-sized businesses. Whether the regulation on the EEUPC will actually reduce costs for German small and medium-sized businesses, for example, remains to be seen. The numerous formal requirements, the translations that may be necessary and the fact that the court of appeal will probably not be located in Germany will be more likely to increase the costs of a normal patent infringement case. In its announcement of 29 March 2009, the Commission reported typical figures in Germany for infringement and revocation proceedings of approx. 50,000 in the first instance and approx. 90,000 in the second instance. The Commission estimates the cost of proceedings before the EEUPC at 97,000 to 415,000 for the first instance and 83,000 to 220,000 in the second instance. According to this, proceedings by a German company against competitors based in Germany would not be cheaper, but more expensive. The system would therefore only pay off if the plaintiff intended to bring an action in at least one state outside Germany and would then be able to save some of the generally higher costs. In the areas covered by medium-sized companies, world market leaders are often based in Germany, so a purely German action in accordance with the German Code of Civil Procedure would be just as effective but substantially cheaper. Dr. Christof Augenstein Attorney at Law, Düsseldorf Newsletter February

5 Copyright an end to the buy-out? In decision I ZR 38/07 of , the Federal Supreme Court gave a comprehensive judgement on translators royalties. The translator of the book Talking to Addison claimed further royalties from her publisher, over and above the rate per standard page, which amounted to a total of per standard page. The claim was for further, circulation-based translator royalties. The Federal Supreme Court granted the claim in part, but what is particularly notable about this decision is the fact that the Federal Supreme Court laid down two basic principles: Firstly, the Federal Supreme Court stated that the translator royalty payment of per page is usual, but nevertheless unreasonable. The originator should have a share in all kinds of economic benefit from their work. A fixed fee could not therefore be deemed a reasonable remuneration. In addition to a basic fee every agreement should therefore also provide for an utilisation-related payment. The originator should not be included in the royalty agreement under a structure that simply granted them the minimum fee if the work is utilised successfully they should also have a share in that success. Therefore fixed fees are not generally appropriate for achieving a usual and reasonable remuneration as required by copyright law. In addition the Federal High Court added a new division of profits principle to the copyright law: if the publisher benefits further from the ancillary rights, the originator should in any case be given a half share in these profits. This aspect, too, negates the suitability of a fixed fee for the originator. The decision is therefore particularly significant, as the statements only superficially refer to the translator, with the Federal High Court referring throughout the decision to the author. It may therefore be legitimately expected that the statements also apply to all other types of author, which may include designers, photographers, journalists or graphic designers. When drawing up copyright licences, these payment rules should therefore be observed if possible, in order to avoid unpleasant surprises at a later date. Prof. Dr. Christian Donle Attorney at Law, Berlin Judgement of the European Court of Justice of on the trade mark PAGO? The ECJ had to decide on the question of whether a Community trade mark is to be viewed as having a reputation in the whole of the European Union area if it has a reputation in only one member state (Austria in this case). The ECJ s answer was affirmative. The decision is of great practical importance, as the scope of protection of a trade mark with a reputation is broader than the scope of protection of a normal trade mark, i.e. one without a reputation. A normal trade mark is only infringed if there is a likelihood of confusion with a trade mark used by a third party. The likelihood of confusion is judged according to the following criteria: identity or similarity of the other party s trade mark, identity or similarity of the other party s goods or services and the distinctiveness of the older trade mark. The protection of a trade mark with a reputation extends beyond this a trade mark with a reputation may even be infringed if the other party s goods or services are not similar. This is expressed as follows in Article 9 (1 c) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation: It is forbidden for Newsletter February

6 third parties to use in the course of trade any sign which is identical with, or similar to, the Community trade mark in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the Community trade mark is registered, where the latter has a reputation in the Community and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the Community trade mark. The original case concerned the Community trade mark PAGO. The PAGO trade mark has a reputation in Austria, both as a word mark and also as a shape mark. The shape mark protection is of the image of a green glass bottle with a distinctive label and cap. The defendant in the case was also using a green glass bottle of this type. The defendant had applied the designation Lattella to the bottle, and in the opinion of the Austrian courts this meant there would be no likelihood of confusion. As the owner of the PAGO trade mark had applied for an injunction for all countries of the EU, the action could only be allowed if the Community trade mark PAGO in the form of the image of a green glass bottle with a distinctive label and cap is a trade mark with a reputation in the Community. The ECJ stated that the term having a reputation meant that a trade mark must be known by a significant part of the public concerned. The public concerned means those to whom the Community trade mark is relevant, therefore, depending on the goods or services being marketed, either the general public or a more specific sector, e.g. certain specialist circles. It would not be possible to require the trade mark to have a specific percentage reputation among the public thus defined. If a trade mark has a reputation within a member state and that member state is regarded as a substantial part of the Community territory, the protection of reputation would extend to the whole of the EU territory. The ECJ held that the country of Austria is to be viewed as a substantial part of the territory of the Community for this purpose and therefore the protection of the reputation of the PAGO trade mark extends accordingly to the whole of the EU. This has considerable practical consequences. If a Community trade mark has a reputation in Austria or in a country with a population greater than that of Austria, then action may be taken on the basis of this trade mark against all identical or similar signs under the conditions of Article 9 (1 c) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation, as quoted above. However, it is not clarified whether this also applies if the Community trade mark only has a reputation in one of the smaller countries, such as Malta or Cyprus. Developments in the ECJ case law are therefore awaited with interest. Jürgen Schneider Attorney at Law, Munich Google Books settlement nears conclusion In recent months the case brought by the US Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers against Google has attracted considerable attention in the press. This case is now approaching settlement. Background In recent years Google has concluded cooperation agreements worldwide (including in Europe) with public libraries, whereby Google scanned in the libraries books for them free of charge and provided a copy of the digitised files for the libraries internal use. In so doing, Google accumulated an estimated total of around 10 million books from Europe and the USA. Extracts from these books are now made available on Google for search purposes in the form of snippets. The image data have been processed using text recognition and are therefore searchable. Claim The US Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, together with various individuals, brought an action against Google before the New York District Court on the grounds that the digitisation Newsletter February

7 of the books represents a copyright infringement through duplication. Google s defence lay essentially in the argument that the scanning constitutes fair use under US copyright law. The New York District Court grouped the actions together as a class action, in which two sub-classes of person are entitled to claim, that of author and that of publisher. In the course of a suit which has been running for several years, the parties agreed a settlement agreement extending to some 300 pages, which was submitted to the New York District Court for approval. A settlement of this kind may only become generally binding once court approval has been obtained. This settlement agreement is unique in that the effects of the settlement extend to all those in each class, regardless of whether or not they are aware of the proceedings. A further unique aspect is that the settlement will give Google powers in future. Those affected The settlement agreement expressly concerned only those with US copyrights in accordance with US copyright law. But the uniqueness arises from the fact that in 1989 the USA joined the Revised Berne Convention (RBC) and therefore any non-us citizen who is a citizen of an RBC country is, in accordance with the applicable national treatment principle, also protected by US copyright law. This therefore affects all authors of books and texts who are nationals of one of the 164 RBC states, which includes all European authors. If the judge had approved the settlement, it would therefore have applied to all European authors. The settlement agreement provided that sub-class members (publishers or authors) who did not want to be included in the settlement were able to and should opt out by declaration to the New York District Court by late summer Anyone who had not done so was automatically bound by the settlement. Provisions According to the provisions of the settlement, Google is entitled to show so-called snippets from all works in its search engine. These are small excerpts from a book that contain the relevant search words. Google may make further use of outof-print works, although the sum of $ 60 must be paid to a Book Rights Registry for the scanning of such books. This collection company, which will nevertheless be largely controlled by Google, will then distribute the money to the two classes. 53% of the advertising profits obtained directly on display of the works should be paid over to the plaintiffs. All other profits remain with Google. A noteworthy aspect of this provision is that it includes works that are not currently sold in the USA, and would probably apply to most European works and literature. This would effectively make Google the major trader in European literature in the USA, because the rights granted also include turnover in the form of printouts or e-books. Google is therefore being transformed into a seller of content and a bookseller. Strong opposition In an unprecedented move the relevant ministers in France and the Federal Republic of Germany (Federal Ministry of Justice) have written to the New York District Court warning the judge against approving the settlement. In particular it was put to the Court that the planned settlement agreement is not in line with the regulations of the RBC, because European authors have effectively been expropriated, and will not receive a single payment, as European authors cannot become members of the US Authors Guild. The same applies to publishers in respect of the Association of American Publishers. Concerned by these and other written representations, the US Ministry of Justice ultimately expressed some reservations and referred to the fact that it had considerable doubts about approving the settlement, on the one hand on the basis of the cartel laws and on the other because of the inclusion of foreigners. The deadline for approval by the Court has therefore been put back several times at the request of the parties. The settlement The parties therefore decided to revise the settlement agreement in various places. The hearing before the New York District Court was Newsletter February

8 postponed, firstly by one month to November 2009 and then to 18 February The revised version provides that the settlement only applies to those books that are published in the USA, Canada or Australia or have been registered by the (foreign) publisher with the US Copyright Office. The majority of European books are therefore excluded from the settlement. Some additional provisions concerning access to the data and sale of the books have also been changed. Following these changes it seems likely that the Court will approve the settlement on 18 February Europe will then have to accept that the settlement, with the limitations indicated, will become reality and Google will thus become one of the major booksellers. As it is likely that in future an increasing percentage of books will be in electronic, paperless format, Google will certainly also grow into one of the most significant booksellers in the English-speaking world. It remains to be seen whether Europe will offer an economically effective response with its various digitisation projects (cf. europeana.eu). Prof. Dr. Christian Donle Attorney at Law, Berlin The use of a trade mark in such a way as to preserve the rights, and evidence thereof In a decision of 23 September 2009 ( (T-409/07 Cohausz v. HABM / COPAT) the Court of First Instance again stressed the importance of proving that trade marks had been used in such a way as to preserve the rights. The background was a legal dispute between Mr Helge Cohausz (Plaintiff) versus OHIM, in which he was seeking reversal of the dismissal of his request for revocation of the registration of the Community trade mark (word/figurative mark) acopat in Classes 35 and 42 because of likelihood of confusion with his prior German word marks. The petition for revocation in respect of the contentious word mark copat compared with the word/figurative mark acopat was dismissed because of lack of proof of use of the Plaintiff s contentious marks in such a way as to preserve the rights. The word marks COPAT were registered inter alia in Class 45 for the following services: Services of a patent attorney; services of a European Patent Attorney; advice, representation, expert reports and searches (technical and legal) in the area of intellectual property law. In the opinion of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM and the Court of First Instance, the documents produced to prove use in such as way as to preserve the right were not sufficient. Of the numerous documents produced, the Board of Appeal considered only the following items of evidence to be possibly relevant: - An image brochure of the company to which the applicant belongs, and invoices for the design and printing of the brochure - Copy of the cover page of an information brochure about the company - A hand-out with the sign COPAT and a list of various intellectual property rights. - Registration of the domain names copat.de and copat.com - An extract from the register of Newsletter February

9 patent attorneys registered with the European Patent Office - An invoice showing that the company had bought software called COPAT mark generator - A copy of a decision by the German Patent and Trade Mark Office in which proof of use of the mark COPAT in such a way as to preserve the rights is deemed to have been given. In addition the Plaintiff had provided an affidavit. According to this affidavit the earlier COPAT marks had regularly been used from 1995 on various hand-outs of this company. In certain (specified) years a handout had been produced under the sign COPAT. 2,000 copies of these hand-outs had been distributed each year to customers and other interested parties in Germany. Since 1997 the COPAT marks had regularly been printed on company brochures and more than 1,500 copies of these brochures had been sent to customers and interested parties in Germany. Finally, the affidavit contained information on sales amounting to EUR 1 million per annum, obtained by selling the service using the CO- PAT marks. The Court of First instance confirmed the decision of the First Board of Appeal and dismissed Mr Cohausz s case with the following arguments: In principle affidavits are admissible as evidence in accordance with Art. 78 (1) f of the 207/2009 Regulation. However, an affidavit has to be examined for plausibility and the truthfulness of the information it contains. Furthermore, account must be taken of the origin of the documents, the circumstances in which they were drafted, the addressee and whether the content appears reliable (margin note 49). An affidavit which is merely indicative must be supported by further evidence (margin note 57). It was therefore of little help to the Plaintiff to affirm the publication dates of each of the brochures and make reference to invoices, as there were no dates on the brochures themselves and the invoices could not be attributed to the brochures. In the margin the Court referred to the fact that the printing of 100 brochures is far from sufficient to prove use such as to preserve the rights (margin note 64). Registration of the domain names alone does not show that the marks were used such as to preserve the rights. The Plaintiff had not been able to produce any documents (extracts from the website) from the period in dispute. Making reference to the aforementioned decision of the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, the Court referred to the fact that the system of Community trade marks is an autonomous system, independent of the national legal systems (margin note 71). The statement about annual turnover amounting to EUR 1 million is also not indicative of the volume of sales of the services in Germany, as no further statements were made and the turnover figures were not attributed to the individual services provided under the trade mark CO- PAT. To sum up, it is clear that an affidavit does not replace additional, concrete evidence such as invoices, screenshots, or specification of the services attributable to the trade mark. The more detailed the additional documents, the greater the chance that OHIM or the Court of First Instance will consider documents as sufficient proof of use such as to preserve the rights. Astrid Gérard, LL.M. Attorney at Law, Munich Newsletter February

10 European Court of Justice decision on information database In the decision Infopaq Rs. C-5/08, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg decided in favour of the author. The information database company Infopaq had scanned in newspaper articles, processed the image files thus obtained using a text recognition program, and then deleted the image files. Search words together with five preceding and subsequent words were saved from the text files and made available for search enquiries. it clear in its decision that the scanning, text recognition and saving of the texts and the printout of short extracts of up to eleven words is not a mere transient duplication, such as is deemed permitted use in the Copyright Directive for the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright law in the information society. The Copyright Directive provides that certain computer saving processes, technically required particularly during Internet use, are not defined as duplication. databases and saved copies of copyright-protected works also in principle requires the consent of the author. This decision has similar significance in the image sector, as the same rules apply here. Images should also not be scanned by database or information providers and provided as printouts or partial printouts, without the consent of the copyright holder. Prof. Dr. Christian Donle Attorney at Law, Berlin On referral of the case from the Danish court, the ECJ ruled that even this kind of partial reproduction of a newspaper article may represent an infringement of copyright. This is essentially a question for the relevant national copyright law, but such a decision is not contrary to European Community law. The ECJ also made The ECJ has clarified that the information saved by an information processing body cannot be covered by this privilege, which was intended to apply to caching or similar interim saving processes. The ECJ therefore set out with welcome clarity that the use of such Information on the Commercial Register, Company Register and Federal Gazette Companies are being required to publish more and more information. The majority of this information can be accessed via the Internet. Those who do not publish risk fines of between EUR 2,500 and EUR 25,000. This ensures a quantum leap in transparency, as well as considerable time and cost savings for users. Information that used to be timeconsuming to obtain, or was possibly not available at all, can now be obtained in a matter of minutes and processed quickly. The Commercial Register (www. handelsregister.de) and electronic Federal Gazette ( websites accessible on the Internet, together with their associated databases, are networked with the Company Register (www. unternehmensregister.de). This Company Register was established by the German Act on Electronic Commercial Registers, Cooperative Society Registers and the Company Register (EHUG) as a central platform for storing legally relevant company data. This makes essential company data, the publication of which is provided for by law, available in bundled form for online retrieval. In addition to this data, the areas Original Register Data and Publications of the Company Register also provides access to entries from the electronic Commercial, Cooperative Society and Partnership Registers. It also includes publications (mandatory disclosures) and announcements (voluntary disclo- Newsletter February

11 sures) from the electronic Federal Gazette, although this is not the full content of the Federal Gazette. Information from the Commercial Register and some information from the Electronic Federal Gazette is also available for retrieval via the Company Register. Retrieval of the data in the other direction is not possible, however. For example, the Commercial Register incorrectly shows as unavailable information that can be located in the Company Register, such as annual accounts. For this reason we recommend in general that Internet searches are carried out first in the Company Register and then in the other Registers. However it should be noted that the Commercial Register followed by the Company Register does not make the full range of Commercial Register documents available electronically. For example, it is not possible to retrieve electronic versions of judicial and extrajudicial correspondence between courts and the parties involved in cases, or old files prior to the introduction of the electronic Commercial Register. In addition, alongside the familiar register entries, both the Commercial Register and the Company Register offer separate publications and announcements with additional information. The Federal Gazette contains not only information on laws and the legal situation, but also where necessary some very useful information on various areas. The following is a brief overview of the content and provision of the websites in question: 1. The Commercial Register is a public register containing entries in Section A ( HRA ) of individuallyowned enterprises, partnerships and commercial associations having a legal capacity, and in Section B ( HRB ) of joint-stock companies, in the area of the District Court responsible for keeping the register. Entries in the Commercial Register are made in principle only on application and are publicly certified electronically (Section 12(1) of the German Commercial Code). Entry is obligatory for companies which by type or volume require a commercial business operation (Sections 1, 29 Commercial Code). According to the Commercial Register Regulation, the Commercial Register is made up of electronically-maintained register sheets and contains details of the company name, registered office, place of business and subsidiaries, including the address, and the object of the company. Information on persons with legal powers of representation (members of the board, managing directors, etc.) and any special powers of representation, and on the legal form of the company, the start date, bylaws or shareholder agreement, is also given. In addition to the nominal capital, details of limited partners, members and GmbH shareholders are also available. Details can also be found on the opening of insolvency proceedings, deregistration of the company, liquidation and the date of the last entry. Annual accounts can only be found in the Commercial Register up to and including the year 2005 (some of these are not available electronically); from 2006 they must be sought in the Company Register or the Electronic Federal Gazette. Searches of companies and company proprietor data, and the retrieval of publications, are free of charge. Costs are payable on all other information accessed, for example EUR 1.50 for bylaws and lists of partners (No. 401 Administrative Judicial Costs Order (JVKostO)) or EUR 4.50 for AD, CD and other register sheets (No. 400 JVKostO). Users must register in order to use chargeable services. 2. The Company Register of the Federal Gazette has been publishing the essential company data required by law since This includes primarily financial statement documents and publications of decisions and declarations as provided by Section 264 (3) Commercial Code, as well as financial reports of the issuers of securities. There are also publications of public limited companies, partnerships limited by shares, limited liability companies, cooperative societies, general mercantile partnerships, mutual insurance companies and foreign companies. Notifications by issuers of securities giving insider information, director s dealings, vote announcements, securities acquisitions and takeovers can also be found, as well as announcements in insolvency, liquidation, composition and bankruptcy Newsletter February

12 proceedings. 3. The Electronic Federal Gazette is divided into several parts. The official section contains the electronic publication of statutory instruments and announcements by the Federal Government. The court section comprises a case register in accordance with the Capital Investor Model Proceedings Act (KapMuG), public service of notices, criminal cases, public notices of persons in property and inheritance cases, and of documents, liquidation proceedings, exclusory judgements, invalidations and other decisions. The Company Announcements section contains company declarations and the Accounting/Financial Reports section is where account documents, in particular annual accounts, can be found. The comprehensive Capital Market section includes funds publications, tax bases, director s dealings, vote notifications, fund prices, inventory values, share prices, securities and information in accordance with the Solvency Regulation. Finally, there is a section for Various Announcements, which contains information on calls for tender, professional and trade associations, health schemes, unions and associations, collecting societies and other announcements. Sebastian Frhr. von Bechtolsheim Attorney at Law, Munich From annual accounts must be submitted electronically Annual accounts may be submitted in paper format to the electronic Federal Gazette only until This concludes the transition period. From all annual accounts must be submitted electronically to This platform belongs to the electronic Federal Gazette, the central platform for official announcements and notices and also for legally-relevant company news. The rule applies regardless of the financial year to which the annual accounts relate. Registers, Cooperative Society Registers and the Company Register (EHUG) which came into force on It obliges all companies to submit annual accounts to which a duty of disclosure applies direct to the electronic Federal Gazette, Section 12 EHUG. Other important official platforms for company information are the Company Register and the Commercial Register If you want to know more about these platforms you can visit our website and view the summarised information under Publications or call us. Sebastian Frhr. von Bechtolsheim Attorney at Law, Munich Isabel von Gerstenbergk- Helldorff Attorney at Law, Munich This change results from the German Act on Electronic Commercial Newsletter February

13 Introducing our younger associates We are pleased to introduce below our younger associates who support our Düsseldorf office. Further information can be found on our website Alexander Haertel Alexander Haertel has worked at the Düsseldorf office in the field of commercial intellectual property law since Mr. Haertel first studied law in Marburg and Münster, going on to gain his early practical experience in Münster, Dortmund and London. He advises and represents medium-sized and larger companies in all areas of intellectual property law (patent law, trade marks, industrial design law) and in competition law. He specialises in litigation. Mr. Haertel also advises on out-of-court matters and supports clients in the development of strategies for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Miriam Kiefer, LL.M. Miriam Kiefer has been at the Düsseldorf branch of Preu Bohlig & Partner since March Miriam Kiefer began to specialise in the area of intellectual property law while studying, when she discovered her enthusiasm in particular for patent law and technical issues. During her legal training period she worked in a practice that specialises in patent infringement disputes and upon passing the second national examination she was awarded the LL.M. in Intellectual Property Law at the Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf. Miriam Kiefer advises and represents both German and foreign clients in national and international patent infringement disputes. She acts mainly in the fields of medical technology, biotechnology, chemistry and mechanical engineering. Newsletter February

14 Would you like to receive our newsletter? PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER Ms. Carolin Maluck Fax +49 (0) or If your colleagues or members of other departments would be interested in receiving our newsletter, please send the completed form to the fax number or address above. Firm Name Position Address Postcode/Town (required) Newsletter German English The PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER newsletter is sent out periodically by . If you no longer wish to receive our newsletter, please send an to the reply-to address on the newsletter or to the above address. You will be removed from our subscriber list immediately. The newsletter is of course free of charge. Newsletter February

15 Our Offices Berlin Grolmanstraße Berlin Tel +49 (0) Fax +49 (0) Düsseldorf Freiligrathstraße Düsseldorf Tel +49 (0) Fax +49 (0) Hamburg Warburgstraße Hamburg Tel +49 (0) Fax +49 (0) Munich Leopoldstraße 11a Munich Tel +49 (0) Fax +49 (0) Newsletter February