WTR describes you as “an outstanding strategic thinker” and you have garnered acclaim as a leading expert in trademark law. What is the secret to your success?
All recognition belongs equally to the ARNOLD RUESS team and the clients that trust us. Understanding the commercial aspects of litigation is key, but everyone with ambition in this field must understand that we are service providers and we make others shine. As a litigator, you can’t rest on past laurels. You do not own a client and are not entitled to a case. Recognition in the market needs to be earned again and again. I think it is trivial but true that client focus, dedication and passion for the job define any successful lawyer.
As well as specialising in trademarks and designs, you are also active in copyright law. How do you adapt your approach depending on the type of IP rights you are dealing with?
Each IP category has its own logic in terms of the legal framework and the underlying rationale for protection. Copyright often demands analytical precision in questions of authorship and scope, while trademark work tends to be more strategic and market facing. However, this distinction does not define how to protect or litigate any given IP right. At the end of the day, clients want to prevent third parties from making use of what is rightfully theirs. The more defining considerations are whether a bold public-facing step is required or a behind-the-scenes approach with a licence deal is better suited to meeting their commercial needs.
What are the biggest opportunities in the German copyright space right now, and how are you helping your clients take advantage of these?
Digitalisation continues to transform how creative content is produced, shared and monetised. Recent legislative changes in Germany – such as the implementation of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market – have introduced new mechanisms to protect the interests of creators and rights holders.
One promising area is collective rights management and platform licensing. We work with clients to optimise their licensing models, making sure they are compliant with new obligations while also seizing opportunities for broader market access. For creators, it is about fair remuneration; for platforms and intermediaries, it is about legal certainty.
Another area gaining traction is the assertion of rights against unauthorised AI-training datasets. While this field is still developing, we closely follow the legal discourse and assist clients in understanding how existing copyright rules might apply in the context of large-scale data use and generative technologies. Germany has one of the world’s most robust copyright systems, allowing us to ensure effective protection of intellectual creations against unauthorised use in AI training and establish legal certainty for those seeking to innovate and benefit from this technology.
What has been your most memorable case to date?
It is difficult to single out one specific case and we can only mention what is public. One memorable and still partially ongoing case involves a popular electric table lamp, the design of which our client enforced in around 100 cases, roughly two dozen of which turned into court actions. All but two – in which appeals are pending against trial court verdicts in the client’s favour – are final and we are proud to have not lost one case yet. The memorability, however, comes from a legal twist. The courts have extended platform liability for trademark infringements under the European Court of Justice’s Louboutin ruling to design law, which is a new development that will certainly spark debate among the design community.
Have your clients expressed concern over ‘AI washing’ – the practice of overstating or misrepresenting the use of AI in products, services or business strategies – and how are you helping them to navigate the latest IP threats in this area?
‘AI washing’ is increasingly relevant. As AI becomes a marketing buzzword, some companies risk making inflated claims about their technological capabilities, which can expose them to both regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage. Corporations not only ask about protection of their AI innovations, but also the legal boundaries of how such technologies may be described.
While we do not market specific services for AI-washing, clients increasingly raise questions about the legal boundaries of promoting AI-driven technologies. Our advice in these cases draws on our IP, advertising and tech-related rights protection experience. Ultimately, the goal is to enable innovation while maintaining integrity and reducing exposure, both to legal claims and to the court of public opinion.
Peter Ruess
Partner
[email protected]
Professor Dr Peter Ruess is a partner at Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft. He focuses on intellectual property, particularly trademark, design, copyright and competition law. Professor Ruess has given presentations in multiple jurisdictions and authored or co-authored more than 80 publications. He studied law at the University of Vienna, and obtained a doctorate from the University of Bayreuth in Germany and an LLM in IP law from the George Washington University Law School in Washington DC.
