- The compendium with drug information was not recognized as a copyrighted linguistic work because the linguistic design lacks the required individuality.
- In the event of an unfair takeover, it must be examined whether the first competitor has already amortized its expenses; this amortization concept influences the duration of protection and the assessment of expenses.
BGE 134 III 166 of February 13, 2008:
Regalia a:
Art. 2 URG; copyright protection for a linguistic work; work individuality, statistical uniqueness.
Denial of protection for a compendium with drug information because the linguistic design of the texts does not achieve the required individuality (E. 2).Regalia b:
Art. 5 lit. c UWG; unfair competition; adoption of a work product “without reasonable own effort”.
In assessing whether the takeover took place without reasonable own effort, it must also be taken into account whether the first competitor has already amortized its effort at the time of the takeover. The “amortization idea” is relevant both for the temporal limitation of the protection flowing from Art. 5 lit. c UCA and for the assessment of expenses (E. 4.2 and 4.3).
For this also swissblawg.