Actively dealing with infringement is vital when dealing with IP. There should be actual rights to enforce. Indiscriminate claims purporting infringement of a patent or other IP rights are prohibited.
In the Netherlands this is called a ‘wapperverbod’, which can be roughly translated into a ‘waving (with claims) ban’. If one party claims that his IP rights are being infringed, there should be valid IP rights, and the claim should also be acted upon. In the recent Betsoft v Bubble case the court of the Hague had to put this situation in an international perspective.
Two computer software developers make slot machine games for use on PCs. Betsoft, based in Cyprus, introduced the idea of bringing an icon in the game forward, as if coming towards the player. This was called the ‘Expandicon effect’.
Betsoft claimed it had copyright on the source code of the Expandicon effect, as well as on the look and feel it created. Betsoft had approached many parties around the world, claiming copyright infringement.
To continue reading, you need a subscription to WIPR. Start a subscription to WIPR for £455.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the WIPR website – register and select “Free Trial” to begin access to the full WIPR archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £455 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
IP rights, Betsoft, Bubble, US Copyright office,