The ECJ handed down an interesting judgment interpreting the notion of infringement of copyright and trade mark law in the context of Regulation 1383/2003.

On 3 September 2014, the ECJ handed down its judgment in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn en Vrijheidsfonds in which it gave guidance regarding the parody exception to copyright.

On 13 January 2012, the European Commission published two studies exploring the need for further harmonisation in the field of EU intellectual property rights.

On 11 June 2015, Advocate General Cruz Villalón delivered an opinion on a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeal in a case between Hewlett-Packard Belgium and Reprobel.

On 19 September 2013, Advocate General Sharpston issued an opinion following a request for a preliminary ruling from an Italian court concerning the legality of Nintendo’s technical protection measures by which that party blocked third-party accessories to its gaming consoles.

On 5 June 2014, the ECJ held that browsing websites without first obtaining the authorisation from the copyright holder does not infringe copyright.

The European Commission is currently seeking public feedback by 23 October 2025 on its proposed updates to the rules that govern how companies in the EU share technology with one another.

On 4 February 2013, the Antwerp Court of Appeal partially upheld the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Mechelen holding that simulcasting does not amount to new cable distribution within the meaning of the Law on copyright and related rights of 30 June 1994 (the "Copyright Law").

Copyright income benefits from a particularly advantageous tax treatment. Up to a certain ceiling these are taxed at a separate rate of 15%.

No one can deny that intellectual property is a valuable asset.

Test-Achats, a Belgian consumer organization, filed copyright infringement claims against four leading music companies for their use of technological protection measures on various CDs.

Today the metaverse is still a mystery to many. There are more questions than answers. Particularly in relation intellectual property rights ("IPR") infringements in these emerging worlds.

On 27 March 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ") responded to a preliminary question of the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) on the interpretation of Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (the "Directive").

On 2 May 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ") delivered a preliminary ruling in the case pitting SAS Institute Inc. ("SAS") against World Programming Ltd. ("WPL").

The case will now go back to the national court, which must deliver a decision in line with the ECJ's interpretation of the Directive.

Convinced that these practices infringed its copyright in the taste of "Heksenkaas", Levola brought an action against Smilde for copyright infringement.

According to Rundfunk, Edelweiss must thus pay the appropriate fees to obtain authorisation from the right holders.

The Referring Court stayed the proceedings and referred two questions for a preliminary ruling to the ECJ.

In assessing the intention of the seller, the ECJ offered guidance to the national court.

The Copyright Directive will create favourable conditions for cross-border distribution of television and radio programmes online.