Mediaboss Marketing

Press play to listen to this article

If you thought cheap mobile roaming was a fait accompli in Europe, think again.

European Union lawmakers are butting heads once again over what the EU considers one of its biggest consumer rights victories in history: the right for consumers to call, text and stream without paying extra costs when traveling within the EU.

A 2017 deal on data roaming was hailed as "one of the greatest and most tangible successes of the EU" that demonstrated to everyday Europeans that the European Union worked in their favor amid fears about populism, Brexit and hostility toward the bloc's leadership. It followed 13 years of political haggling that pitted EU officials against national capitals pressured by mighty telecoms giants.

But lawmakers left the work unfinished, sort of.

The 2017 regulation was designed to let roaming rights expire by June 30, 2022, requiring the Commission to propose an extension of the rules for another 10 years, earlier this year in February. Negotiators of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on Wednesday meet for a crunchtime meeting to work out the final details to extend the rules, as the clock ticks to make the deadline.

"Time is slowly running out as the newly revised regulation should enter into force before summer," said Robert Hajel, a Slovak Social Democrat member of Parliament who was closely involved in negotiating Parliament's position on the law.

A document obtained by POLITICO showed officials have to overcome "four major outstanding political questions," including the maximum price telecoms providers can charge each other for using each others' networks abroad ("wholesale price caps") and the price of calls EU citizens make to telephone numbers from other EU countries ("intra-EU calls").

If negotiations fail, EU citizens could face dreaded "mega-bills" for using their mobile phones abroad yet again next summer season.

Most contentious in the list of obstacles is an attempt by the European Parliament to scrap high charges on calls made to a different European country, known as intra-EU calls. While calls from abroad to home plummeted in price due to the EU's roaming rules, these intra-EU calls can still cause confusion and phone bill scares among Europeans.

The issue is a key element to Parliament members and consumer groups alike not least because it's the part that voters and citizens.

The right to free movement across the bloc should enable free international calls, said Cludio Teixeira, legal officer at consumer group BEUC. He pointed out that resorting to internet platforms for calls assumes that everyone has access to a smartphone, which in turn penalizes poorer or remote consumers.

"There is no justification why consumers should be treated differently inside the European Union, from calling across borders, simply because that call starts in one member state and ends in another," said Teixeira.

But telecoms operators have lamented Parliament's attempt to cut the costs. Thirteen telecoms CEOs said in a joint statement last week that scrapping intra-EU calls billing would cost the sector 2 billion in the coming four years, a time when the sector is strapped for cash as it invests in rolling out 5G networks.

The historic mission of our sector, today, is to give 5G and fibre to all Europeans. Imposing yet more price cuts on an already hyperregulated sector would openly contradict the EU Digital Decade Targets," said Lise Fuhr, director general of ETNO, the European Telecommunications Network.

This week's negotiating document suggested Parliament could settle for soft language that nudges operators to lower the costs of intra-EU calls, rather than a hard law that abolishes these charges.

A second issue that's holding back a deal on the extension is an agreement on how much telecoms providers in Europe charge each other for using networks when their customers roam.

The Commission proposed to cap those costs at 2 per gigabyte that operators owe each other for the use of each other's networks.

But members of Parliament pushed to lower the prices for wholesale costs. "The Commission is not ambitious enough in our opinion," said Austrian MEP Angelika Winzig of the center-right European People's Party, who's leading negotiations on behalf of Parliament.

The Commission said that it wanted to be "an honest broker" during negotiations, aiming to get the Council and Parliament to agree on a price cap with additional requirements that guarantee a certain quality of service.

"Whether we conclude before Christmas or not is not clear yet," said Hajel, the lead Social Democrat MEP on the file. "If a better agreement needs more time, we will not be those pushing to conclude before the end of the year."

See the article here:
Europe is fighting over roaming again - POLITICO.eu

After two dozen countries have reported cases of the omicron variant, the European Union (EU) countries might be headed towards mandatory vaccination to fight the spread of COVID-19, according to head of EU commission.

Given only a third of the EU population is still unvaccinated, the head of EU commission Ursula von der Leyen said, "My personal position is I think it is understandable and appropriate to lead this discussion now."

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen makes a statement on camera regarding Brexit negotiations, after a phone call with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, at EU headquarters in Brussels in 2020. (AP/Julien Warnand, File)

The EU has increased travel restrictions since the variant was first reported and as cases continue to spike across Europe, according to a recent report.

COVID-19 OMICRON VARIANT WON'T STOP NEW ZEALAND'S REOPENING PLANS, PRIME MINISTER SAYS

On November 26, the World Health Organization (WHO) designated the variant B.1.1.529 as a variant of concern, also called omicron, based on the evidence that omicron has several mutations that may increase its chance of transmissibility.

Closeup of Ruffled European Union Flag, European Union Flag Blowing in Wind. The EU is considering prohibiting Americans from traveling to its member countries as it begins to reopen its borders over coronavirus conditions in the United States.

But the WHO reiterated, its unclear if the omicron variant is indeed more transmissible or weather it causes more severe disease compared to other variants, including delta.

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ON OMICRON: NO PROOF OF COVID-19 VACCINES WON'T PREVENT AGAINST SEVERE DISEASE

"Preliminary data suggests that there are increasing rates of hospitalization in South Africa, but this may be due to increasing overall numbers of people becoming infected, rather than a result of specific infection with omicron. There is currently no information to suggest that symptoms associated with omicron are different from those from other variants," according the Sunday press release.

"Initial reported infections were among university studentsyounger individuals who tend to have more mild diseasebut understanding the level of severity of the omicron variant will take days to several weeks."

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen speaks during a press statement at EU headquarters in Brussels, Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2020. The European Union's executive commission has proposed European Commission vice-president Valdis Dombrovskis to take over the post of EU trade commissioner following the resignation of Ireland's Phil Hogan. (Aris Oikonomou, Pool Photo via AP)

Some EU states are proactively taking steps towards mandatory vaccination, including Austria, which announced mandatory vaccinations from February next year, while Greece is levying fines against those who are unvaccinated over the age of 60 years old. France announced COVID-19 passes will be deactivated for those adults who have not received boosters, starting in mid January, according to the BBC report.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"The most effective steps individuals can take to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus is to keep a physical distance of at least 1 meter from others; wear a well-fitting mask; open windows to improve ventilation; avoid poorly ventilated or crowded spaces; keep hands clean; cough or sneeze into a bent elbow or tissue; and get vaccinated when its their turn," according to the WHO press release.

Go here to read the rest:
European Union mulling mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations - Fox News

Meeting in Brussels, the members of the Stabilisation and Association Council (SA Council) reviewed Kosovos progress on its European path following the publication of the European Commissions 2021 Report on Kosovo.

The parties discussed recent developments relating to the fulfilment of the political criteria, as well as the state of play concerning the economic criteria, financial cooperation and implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.

The parties welcomed Kosovos renewed commitment to its European path. They agreed on the need to continue with reforms, including through the implementation of the second phase of the European Reform Agenda, and building on Kosovos achievements to date. This requires increased focus by all political actors, strengthening of the administrative capacities and an effective coordination structure within the Kosovo institutions.

The parties reiterated the importance of visa liberalisation for Kosovo citizens. The decision on the proposal remains under consideration in the Council. The parties also took note of the positive developments in Kosovos economic growth, in the light of recent projections by Kosovo institutions of 9.9 % for 2021.

The parties discussed reform priorities in the areas of the fundamentals, and noted the governments commitment to enhance rule of law, fight against corruption and organised crime, respect for fundamental rights; public administration reform; economic development; as well as education and employment. Regarding the Specialist Chambers, the parties appreciated the cooperation shown by Kosovo authorities. The parties agreed on the need for continued commitment by Kosovo, in full compliance with its own legal framework and its international obligations, with genuine efforts to guarantee the rule of law, fundamental freedoms, justice and work on reconciliation.

The meeting underlined the importance of constructive engagement in the EU-facilitated Dialogue to negotiate and achieve a comprehensive legally binding normalisation agreement with Serbia. This is crucial in order for Kosovo and Serbia to advance on their respective European paths. All past agreements need to be respected and fully implemented.

The parties agreed on the importance of Kosovos active and constructive participation in regional cooperation mechanisms, notably the Common Regional Market and the Green Agenda for the Western Balkans as endorsed at the 2020 Sofia Summit, and of Kosovo taking full advantage of the Economic and Investment Plan, which will bolster the regions long-term development, sustainable recovery, health resilience and green and digital transition, and help to advance on European path.

Kosovo informed about its intention to apply for membership.

The meeting was chaired by the Prime Minister of Kosovo, Mr Albin Kurti. The Kosovo delegation included Deputy Prime Minister Besnik Bislimi and Minister Donika Gervalla, Minister Hekuran Murati, Minister Xhelal Svecla, Minister Liburn Aliu, and Deputy Minister Nita Shala. The EU delegation was led by High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Mr Josep Borrell, and included Commissioner for Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, Mr Olivr Vrhelyi, who represented the European Commission.

* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.

See the original post:
Joint press statement following the 4th meeting of the Stabilisation and Association Council between the European Union and Kosovo*, Brussels, 7...

Is this it? I thought it was meant to start playing a tiny, tinny version of Land of Hope and Glory and red, white and blue confetti would burst out when opened. As was completely predictable to anyone not in the market for snake oil and fools gold, the new passport entirely fails to make up for what Britain has lost by leaving the European Union.

Various scam artists of Brexit said the spoils of a Leave vote would be something to be proud of but what I hold in my hands is deeply mediocre and quite embarrassing, like contemporary Britain itself.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Talk about broken promises its not even the strong, regal navy blue that was talked up in the tabloids and by Home Secretary Priti Patel who claimed the return of the iconic blue and gold design would once again be entwined with our national identity. Well, its here, and what Im looking at is dull matt black.

For some the colour change and its oblique symbolism was deeply exciting, but in Brexit Britain not even the manufacturing of our bureaucratic documents has gone smoothly. Are those who chased after these dubious rewards happy now? Do they sit and stroke the cover of their own passports pretending theyre navy, and that the colour of the thing means anything at all?

Forget that Brexiteer pipe dream of ruddy-cheeked Brits abroad beaming with sovereign pride holding their post-Brexit passports aloft. British travellers are likely to look even more tired and strained under the strip lights of airport security, where well be standing in longer queues, as Germans on mini-breaks zip straight through. This is life in the slow lane, baby. Get used to it. Britain is stuck here for the foreseeable.

At the European table, Britain is the oblivious uncle nobody is listening to, sitting in the corner muttering and picking gristle out of his teeth, three conversations behind. Sure, these islands got a kick out of being spiteful to the neighbours, dancing around and sticking middle fingers up to France throughout the whole sorry Brexit campaign, but hazy memories are all anyone got out of the experience.

Three years ago when passport chat was at peak excitability, Tory MP Andrew Rosindell claimed hed found the Burgundy passport embarrassing and repeatedly referred to it as pink as though identifying it as a threat to his masculinity. National identity matters and there is no better way of demonstrating this today than by bringing back this much-loved national symbol when travelling overseas, he said.

Ive got plenty of time to contemplate the let-down of this bigged-up passport because, now were out of the Schengen zone, Im having to hoof it over to the Finnish consulate at an ungodly hour to ask nicely for a Visa, all of which is costing money and time I took for granted before.

Can you believe weve thrown away the ability to simply rock up to our European neighbours doors without faffing about with stressful paperwork in advance? I still cant! What an idiotic move that was, huh?

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

Read this article:
Post-Brexit passport is a fitting symbol for the idiocy of leaving the European Union Laura Waddell - The Scotsman

The distinctive function and distinctive character

Trademarks serve to distinguish the goods or services of one company from those of other companies. This is the trademarks most relevant function for the legal system. Only signs which have the capacity to distinguish, i.e., distinctive capacity, can fulfil that function. For this reason, the rules that regulate trademark law determine that a trademark that does not have distinctive capacity cannot be protected, namely through registration.

In the European Union, both the European Union Trademark Regulation ((EU) 2017/1001) and the Directive approximating the laws of the Member States relating to trademarks ((EU) 2015/2436) include a general rule prohibiting the registration of trademarks "devoid of any distinctive character" (Articles 7(1)(b) of the Regulation and 7(1)(b) of the Directive). Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation and Article 4(1)(b) of the Directive) and a specific rule prohibiting the registration of descriptive marks, i.e., marks which describe characteristics of the goods or services which they are intended to distinguish (Article 7(1)(c) of the Regulation and Article 4(1)(c) of the Directive).

For abbreviations and acronyms, the prohibition of registration of descriptive trademarks is of particular relevance. This rule has two grounds: first, that only trademarks capable of fulfilling their principal function may be registered, and second, the public interest in preventing the creation of exclusive rights to use terms that other traders may wish to use.

For example, the terms "Orange Juice" cannot be a trademark to identify the product orange juice, not only because they are not able to distinguish the orange juices of one company from those of others, but also because if they were registered, any competitor of the registrant would be prevented from using these terms to indicate the type of product commercialized.

The rule providing for this prohibition has been interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The CJEU has established that a "sign must be refused for being descriptive if its meaning is immediately perceptible to the relevant public as a sign providing information on the goods and services for which registration is sought." And that the "relationship between the sign and the goods and services must be sufficiently concrete, direct and understood without further consideration." In other words, the method of gauging whether a term is descriptive is as follows: a) identify the meaning of the trademark; b) ascertain whether there is any relationship between the meaning of the trademark and any characteristic of the goods and/or services; and c) if so, ascertain whether the relevant public will identify that relationship concretely and directly and understand it without any further reflection.

The case of abbreviations and acronyms

The question is whether abbreviations or acronyms of descriptive terms should also be considered descriptive. In other words, if the term "ecological" is descriptive to identify ecological products, is its abbreviation "eco" also descriptive? Or if, being the terms "orange juice" descriptive to identify the orange juice product, its acronym "OJ" will also be so. As with any other sign, the answer is given by applying the criterion established by the CJEU.

An abbreviation is descriptive if it is used descriptively and if the relevant public of the product or service in question recognizes the abbreviation as having the same meaning as the full term. In the example of the abbreviation 'eco', to the extent that the public recognizes its meaning as 'ecological', they will see the expression as describing a characteristic of the product or service and not as an indication of the business origin of the product, so 'eco' cannot be registered as a trademark.

Other examples of descriptive abbreviations:

FLEX and FLEXI, as referring to "flexible", to identify footwear (13/06/2014, T-352/12)

MEDI, as referring to "medical", to identify medical services (12/07/2012, T-470/09)

Note that not all abbreviations of descriptive terms are descriptive. It is always necessary to ascertain in the specific case whether the abbreviation is recognized with the same meaning as the full term.

The situation with acronyms is similar. Only if an acronym is understood by the relevant public in a concrete and direct manner and without any further reflection, such as the indication of a characteristic of the product or service in question should it be considered descriptive and consequently be refused its registration. For example, the trademark application TDI was refused for vehicles because the relevant public will understand TDI to mean, respectively, "turbo", "diesel" or "direct" and "injection" (03/12/2003, T-16/02). On the other hand, the acronym OJ, to identify orange juice will not be understood by the relevant public with the meaning of "orange juice", so it will not be descriptive and can be registered.

Differently, in cases where a sign is composed of a non-descriptive acronym in itself, preceding or succeeding a descriptive word combination, it must be gauged whether the "relevant public understands the whole of the sign as a simple expression combined with an abbreviation of that word combination" (E.g., Multi Markets Fund MMF, 15/03/2012, C-90/11 & C-91/11). If so, the application for registration shall be refused.

On the other hand, the trademark will be registered if the relevant public does not rightly and immediately understand the acronym as referring to the combination of descriptive words, but as "a distinctive element that will cause the sign as a whole to prevail over the sum of its individual elements, as demonstrated in the following example: 'The Organic Red Tomato Soup Company - ORTS'."[1]

[1] European Union Intellectual Property Office, Guidelines on trade marks and designs, https://guidelines.euipo.europa.eu/1923149/1868526/orientacoes---marcas/2-4-abreviaturas-e-acronimos

Visit link:
European Union Trademarks: Can abbreviations and acronyms be registered? - Inventa International