AirWair, the Dr Martens maker firm, had sued Pull&Bear in 2019 for infringement of its intellectual property rights in relation to four styles of footwear commercialized by Pull&Bear in the US and also asked for financial compensation. Pull&Bear argued in front of the U.S. jury that the designs are “generic,” so there is no protection and therefore no infringement in commercializing boots similar to Dr. Marten’s footwear.

In August, the jury already rendered its verdict, considering the infringement of Dr. Martens’ intellectual property rights by Pull & Bear, but nevertheless dismissed the request for a financial compensation for such infringement.

Pull&Bear had already stopped commercializing the disputed products, but also, on November 18, 2021, the judge of the Northern District Court of California decided to permanently enjoin Inditex from designing, manufacturing, importing, exporting, distributing, licensing, selling, marketing, advertising, promoting or offering for sale in the United States the disputed Footwear or any footwear using any of the following Dr. Martens trade dress:

• a combination of yellow stitching in the welt area, and a two-tone ribbed sole edge;
• a sole edge that includes longitudinal ribbing, and a dark band on a light color;
• longitudinal ribs and a dark-colored band on a light color on the outer edge of the sole, welt seams and a tongue located on top of the rear heel of the shoe;
• and the overall visual impression of the welt stitching, the ribbed sole edge, the angled heel, the platform sole, the “quad” lug pattern and the heel loop (the “Jadon design”).

It also enjoined Inditex by its judgment from designing, manufacturing, importing, shipping, delivering, selling, marketing, displaying, advertising or promoting footwear in the United States that is a colorable or confusingly similar imitation of the Dr. Martens trade dress, and/or from representing or implying to retailers, customers, distributors, or any other customer or potential customer of Inditex’s products or any Inditex corporate affiliate (collectively, “ITX Products”) that Inditex or any Inditex corporate affiliate (collectively, “ITX Products”) is a colorable or confusingly similar imitation of Dr. Martens trade dress, and/or to represent or imply to retailers, customers, distributors, or any other customers or potential customers of Inditex products or any Inditex corporate affiliate (collectively, “ITX Products”) that the ITX Products originate from, are sponsored, endorsed, or licensed by, or are associated or affiliated with AirWair or Dr. Martens.

Here is the original text of the judgment.

Inditex has not been the only one sued. As reported by the Financial Times, in June 2021 Chinese e-commerce platform Shein is also being sued by AirWair for a “clear intent to sell counterfeits” and points to a product on the website classified as a “Martin boot” in what amounts to an infringement of the original footwear. In the lawsuit filed, AirWair accuses Shein of “not only creating direct copies” of its distinctive designs, but also using “photographs of genuine Dr. Martens footwear to lure customers to its website to purchase counterfeit copy footwear.”

Shein denied all allegations and a hearing is scheduled for the end this year. The outcome of the lawsuit against Shein is sure to be another battle won in AirWair’s favor. What do you think? Leave us your comment.

During the lockdown, most landlords decided to temporarily defer commercial leases. In the case of large landlords with SMEs (small and mid-size enterprises) and self-employed as tenants, the postponement was covered by the Royal Decree approved by the government on April 21,2020, which provided for a maximum period of four months. The preamble of RD 15/2020 stated that it opted for a regulation in accordance with the rebus sic stantibus clause, which allows a temporary modification of contractual conditions in order to avoid excessive burdens on tenants as a result of the pandemic, provided that new circumstances arise, which alter the conditions that were in place when the obligations in question came into force.

In the last year, several lawsuits were filed in Spanish courts for non-payment of commercial leases due to the Covid-19 crisis.

In a lawsuit filed by “Implantaciones Comerciales del Mediterraneo S.L.” (hereinafter “Implantaciones Comerciales”)  against “RPFI Vitoria, S.L.U.”(owner of the El Boulevard shopping center in Vitoria), the Provincial Court of Álava has ruled for the first time in its judgment dated June 30, 2021, confirming the right of the stores to fixed lease reductions due to substantial alterations derived from the pandemic.

The lease agreement signed between the parties in 2017, was agreed for a period of five years and the lease was set based on a percentage of 6% applicable on annual sales, with a minimum guaranteed rent of € 2,530.32 per month, plus € 284.89 for common expenses.

The first instance judgment partially upheld the claim filed by Implantaciones Comerciales, considering that the rebus sic stantibus clause was applicable as a consequence of the substantial alteration in the balance of the services provided under the contract caused by the pandemic situation, which led to the declaration of a state of alarm, with closure and limitations of commercial activity.

Implantaciones Comerciales filed an appeal against this judgment, reiterating its claim that the minimum guaranteed lease be annulled from the first declaration of the state of alarm until the end of the contractual relationship, and that the lease be fixed based on the percentage agreed for the variable rent. Alternatively, the reduction of the lease by 100% during the period of obligatory closure, and 50% during the establishment of the state of alarm, until the end of the contractual relationship.

As grounds for the appeal, it mentioned the equitable distribution of the imbalance, which in its opinion is not complied with in the resolution, taking into account the percentages of the drop in sales. Therefore, it understands that the reference only to the agreed variable percentage is the equitable system.

The question at issue in this case was reduced to the determination of the measures to modify the contract to allow an equitable and fair redistribution of the obligations and rights affected, in order to rebalance the essential bases of the contract.

Given the unpredictability that the unbalancing cause also unfolds for the future, the Provincial Court considered reasonable and effective the regulation of the moderation of the rent depending on the restrictions imposed at any given time for the exercise of the business, whether it is the closing or the restrictions of capacity or limitations of opening hours to the public.

Therefore, the Provincial Court confirmed in its entirety the judgment of the court of first instance, which reduced the minimum guaranteed lease by 50% during periods of closure and by 25% in other periods affected by other restrictions, without prejudice to the moratoriums that may also be agreed upon by the parties.

The Provincial Court emphasizes that it is necessary to establish a mechanism that distributes between the parties the prejudice derived from the exceptional situation, as it unbalances the basic obligation affected, which is the payment of the lease, while the assignment of the use of the premises is not altered in any way.

“The burden of the lease becomes excessively burdensome for the tenant in those periods, but the total elimination of the obligation would mean transferring the entire loss to the landlord, which is not equitable. However, the variability of the amount of lease that the tenant must pay depending on the volume of its sales is a contractual uncertainty, not derived from the exceptional situation caused by the pandemic”, Provincial Court of Álava.

You can apply for design protection for the appearance of all or part of your product. The design is derived from the features of the lines, contours, colors, shape, surface texture and/or materials of your product.

Requirements for the protection of designs

The requirements for the protection of designs are novelty and individual character.

• A design is new if no identical design has been disclosed before it. If two designers differ only in immaterial details, they will still be considered identical.
• A design possesses individual character if the overall impression conveyed to the informed user differs from that conveyed by any other previous designs.

The European Union provides a combination of protection for fashion designs with a short-term unregistered right and a longer-term registered right. Through this Community design protection, the design is protected throughout the European Union (with the exception of the United Kingdom since Brexit). A single application can be filed with the European Union Intellectual Property Office “EUIPO” with headquarters in Alicante.

Unregistered Designs

Unregistered Community Designs (UCDs) provide automatic, short-term (up to three years) EU-wide protection against copying for new designs. You do not have to register it or pay any fees. An UCD protects your design automatically upon its publication. It is not renewable after the term of protection has expired.

Registered Designs

In addition to UCDs, the EU provides protection for Registered Community Designs (“RCDs.” ). RCDs can only be obtained by application to the EU Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”).

You also have one year to register your design from the publish date and it can be renewed up to a maximum term of twenty-five years, provided renewed every five years.

While anyone enforcing an unregistered design has to prove that copying has taken place, registered design protections enable a rights holder to act against third-party products that merely create the same “overall impression” as the registered design, regardless of whether there was proven copying or not. As such, registered designs provide a true monopoly right, with a notably lower bar to enforcement than unregistered designs.

Impact of Brexit

Since Brexit, all existing RCDs have been “copied” to the UK Registered Designs Registry so that registered design protection is not lost to UK owners. As fully independent UK rights, they may be challenged, assigned, licensed or renewed separately from the original RCD. The UK also has its own form of registered design protection, namely UK Registered Designs (“UKRDs”). UKRDs can only be obtained by filing an application with the UK Intellectual Property Office.

Also, since Brexit, UCD protection no longer applies to the UK. A new UK SUD (“supplementary unregistered design”) has been created for designs first published on or after 1 January 2021. However, the UK also provides automatic protection for all new designs, for 10 years from first publication or 15 years from creation.

The EU and the UK require that the first worldwide publication of the design must take place in the territory of the EU or the UK, respectively, in order for such unregistered protection to remain. Therefore, it is important for companies to choose where to market their new products.

It follows that brands/designers participating in EU events will receive design protection in the EU but not in the UK. Similarly, brands/designers that launch their new designs in the UK will automatically receive unregistered design protection in the UK but not design protection in the EU.

t is not yet clear whether the simultaneous publication of a design in the UK and in the EU, allows protection in both jurisdictions. Until the courts provide clarity, there is a risk that simultaneous publication could inadvertently extinguish both rights, as neither could claim that it was in fact the first worldwide publication of the design.

In her article for VogueBusiness “Influencers are wearing digital versions of physical clothes now”Maghan McDowell writes about the advantages of digital patterns over physical garments and explains how digital sampling works.

According to the article, influencers receive instructions on how to take their pictures and how to pose for the digital proof. Each influencer chooses their preferred look. After providing several images that are digitally cropped by the DressX team, Farfetch, DressX and the influencer review the images to make any necessary changes.

For the digital sampling test, Farfetch selected 10 global influencers and creatives who have a passion for futuristic digital fashion and identify themselves with the Farfetch brand. The collaboration is being carried out for example with Emirati twins @twinshadban, with Korean artist @cheristyle_ , with Kuwaiti artist @taiibbbaaa, as well as with the twins @q2han.

“It’s a way of testing if products are interesting enough for people to buy, before having a massive stock of samples that people don’t want,” says Thinh Petrus Nguyen, director artístico de la marca danesa Han Kjøbenhavn.

Image: Farfetch

The Association for Social Competition (“Verband soziales Wettbewerb“) had reported inadmissible surreptitious advertising and demanded an injunction and warning costs. The lawsuits were filed against the influencer Cathy Hummels from Upper Bavaria, the fashion influencer Leonie Hanne from Hamburg, and the fitness influencer Luisa-Maxime Huss from Göttingen.

In some images, the influencers had inserted so-called “tap tags“, which appear when clicking on the products visible in the images, and name the companies or brands of the manufacturers or suppliers of these products. By clicking on a tap tag, the user is redirected to the Instagram profile of the respective company.

According to the BGH ruling, influencers are allowed to refer to companies on the Internet in pictures with products without a reference to advertising, as long as it does not become too promotional.

This applies, for example, to so-called tap tags in Instagram pictures, which redirect users to the profiles of manufacturers or brands.

According to the German court, a commercial act in favor of another company only exists if the influencer receives a benefit in return or if the contribution is “excessively promotional”, e.g. because the advantages of a product are praised without critical distance and beyond objective information.

“The mere fact that images showing the product are provided with tap tags is not sufficient to imply such advertising surplus,” Germany’s highest civil judges in Karlsruhe ruled. “In contrast, a link to a website of the manufacturer of the depicted product regularly constitutes advertising surplus.”

Two of the influencers sued won their battle before the BGH. In the “Raspberry Jam” case of influencer Luisa-Maxime Huss, however, BGH took a different view.

For an advertisement for a raspberry jam, influencer Luisa-Maxime used a tap tag. When clicking on the image, a tag with the name of the manufacturer appeared. When followers clicked on it, they were redirected to the company’s Instagram profile. However, since Huss received a benefit in exchange for her contribution, it was a commercial act in favor of her own company and in any case, of the third-party company from which she received such consideration. This contribution is not sufficiently marked as advertising. According to the BGH decision, this justifies the requested prohibition.

Influencers who use social media such as Instagram to sell products, offer services or market their own image are running a business. The publication of posts by these influencers on social media is ideal for increasing their notoriety and advertising value and thus promoting their own business.

However, the publication of a post – apart from the case at hand in which the influencer receives a consideration for it – only constitutes a commercial act in favor of another company if this post is excessively promotional according to its overall impression, for example, because it only praises the advantages of a product of this company without any critical distance in such a way that the presentation falls outside the framework of factually induced information.

The mere fact that the images showing the product are provided with tap tags is not enough to imply such advertising surplus.

On the other hand, a link to a website of the manufacturer of the represented product regularly constitutes advertising surplus. The examination of whether a contribution is excessively promotional requires a thorough assessment of the facts by the court, which other contributions for the publication of which no consideration has been established lack.

In this regard, it does not matter whether consumers realize that the defendant is acting on behalf of his/her own company by publishing posts on his/her Instagram profile. It must be recognizable to consumers precisely the purpose of a post to promote another company. Failure to disclose the commercial purpose of such a post, provided with tap tags and links, may regularly induce the consumer to make a commercial decision – to click on the link leading to the manufacturer’s Instagram profile – that he/she would not otherwise have made.

The BGH basically assumes that influencers act commercially and promote their own business with their fitness, lifestyle or travel posts. “The publication of posts by these influencers is ideally suited to increase their notoriety and advertising value and thus promote their own business,” reasoned the BGH. However, inadmissible surreptitious advertising requires a company to finance the marketing.

Although this is German case law, which is not directly applicable in Spain, in our opinion it is of great interest to all European influencers and helps to keep in mind the following guidelines for future posts on social media:

• The reference to the products is possible without advertising labeling.
• A commercial act in favor of the third party company only exists if the influencer receives a benefit in return or if the contribution is “excessively promotional”.
• The mere fact that the images showing the product are provided with tap tags is not sufficient to imply such an “advertising surplus”.
• On the other hand, a link to a website of the manufacturer of the product depicted regularly constitutes an “advertising surplus”.

Whats your opinion to this judgement of the German Federal Court of Justice? Leave us your comment.

Images:  @cathyhummels

“We have won. Finally clarity,” writes influencer Cathy Hummels in her post on the day of the victory.

But anyone who thinks that Pamela Reif’s success is based solely on social media, fitness and workouts is mistaken. Pamela has built up quite an empire over the past few years.

Pamela has published a health guide “Strong & Beautiful” (2017), a cookbook “You Deserve This” (2019), her “Pam App” and her own food brand “Naturally Pam”.

She also collaborates with international brands such as Puma, Calzedonia and NA-KD and has her own collections. We especially love her latest Pamela x NA-KD Reborn collections because of her great commitment to producing more sustainable clothing.

To me, being sustainable means not wasting clothes by wearing them only once and then throwing them away. That’s why I designed a very timeless collection that focuses on basics. My goal was to create clothes that people would love to have in their closets for a long time. When NA-KD proposed the exact same concept to me, I was very excited about the possibilities to make a difference,” says Pamela Reif.

The future and goal of the Swedish brand NA-KD is “that all NA-KD Reborn products will be made with innovative materials or new production techniques, such as recycled fishing nets and chemical-free fabric dyes from fruits and vegetables”. 

Discover and join Pamela’s empire.

• Pamela Reif – Youtube 
• @pamela_rf
• @pamgoesnuts
•  Naturally Pam

Image: “Off Shoulder Recicled Mini Dress” from her latest collection

In its judgment, the General Court of the EU considers that the mark represented in Guerlain’s application does in fact have distinctive character “because it departs significantly from the norm and customs of the lipstick sector”, and specifically focused on two points to support its decision:

First, the court held that “the assessment of the distinctive character of an EU trademark is not based on the originality or lack of use of the mark in the field of the goods and services concerned”, and furthermore, “the mere novelty of [a] shape is not sufficient to conclude that there is distinctive character”. At the same time, the court stated that “a three-dimensional mark constructed by the shape of the product for which registration is sought must necessarily depart significantly from the norm or custom of the sector concerned in order to have distinctive character, so that the mere novelty of such shape is not sufficient to conclude that there is such character, since the decisive criterion is the capacity of such shape to fulfill the function of indicating commercial origin.”

Second, the court stated that the fact that they have a high-quality design does not, in and of itself, mean that the three-dimensional shape of those products is distinguishable from the products of others in the market. Although the court stated that it is appropriate to take into account “the aesthetic aspect of a mark“, such consideration does not amount to an assessment of the “attractiveness of the product in question” and, instead, is made in order to determine whether the product is capable of generating “an objective and uncommon visual effect in the eyes of the relevant public”, and, therefore, of differentiating it from other products on the market.

As a result of its earlier groundings, the General Court found that Guerlain’s lipstick shape is “uncommon for a lipstick and differs from any other shape existing on the market,” allowing the court to declare that the mark has distinctive character and can be registered with the EUIPO for use on “lipstick” products.

Eleonora Rosati, professor of intellectual property law and director of the Institute for Intellectual Property and Market Law at Stockholm University, says the General Court’s decision “represents a sensible outcome and brings some refreshing news to trademark applicants who want to register marks in a conventional or less conventional way.” It is also a particularly welcome development for the fashion industry, he says, as “in the last 2-3 years, on their own, things have been pretty bleak for trademark applications relating to such signs.” For example, he notes that the Court of Justice of the European Union “held that Birkenstock’s surface pattern mark lacks distinctive character (C-26/17 P); LVMH has still not been able to get its Damier Azur pattern registered (although things may now improve; T-105/19); Moon Boots’ shape may be copyrightable (in Italy), but has so far been unsuccessful on the trademark registration front (1093/2019-1); and Buffalo Boots’ position mark has not yet been found registrable (2167/2019-1).”

The first TikTok For You House opens on July 22 as a pop-up store designed in 372 m² of space on two floors of London’s Westfield shopping center. The store will remain open until August 8.

It is not about selling products, but rather unique experiences. The TikTok For You House will present trends born on the platform, which can be booked as real-life sessions.

The social platform describes TikTok For You as a “unique IRL experience” that aims to bring together the UK’s best TikTok talent across family, food, fashion, and consumer trends.
The overall experience combines the offline and online worlds for Westfield consumers.

“TikTok has become a cultural phenomenon,” says Harita Shah, UK marketing and creative, media, events and brand director for Europe at Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield. “Many of our visitors are inspired by it, whether it’s fashion trends, the latest home style influencers or ideas for food lovers. The physical space in Westfield offers shoppers the chance to experience TikTok and its most popular creators.”

The design of the showroom is based on the TikTok interface with its trending clips. Visitors will be able to interact with successful influencers and create their own mini-movies. To do so they can book sessions for £ 5 (€ 5.85) and learn from the influencers how content is made for TikTok.

Britain’s most successful TikTok creators such as teenager Kyle Thomas, comedian Ehiz Ufuah, Michelin-star chef Poppy O’Toole and freestyle footballers Jeremy Lynch and Ben Black will be taking part.

The centerpiece of the house will be the Living Room, where editing features will be showcased. The Kitchen will feature recipes and cooking, and the Dressing Room will feature fashion and beauty. In the Garden there will be any sports activities, as well as dance sessions. Information will also be given to parents on how to keep their children safe on the platform.

A recent report “How We Shop:What’s Changed “by Westfield Shopping Centre showed that Londoners’ desire for in-store experiences has increased from 48% to 52% since 2020. According to the report, consumers want to get out of their homes and back into real experiences. And nearly 20% of shoppers want more immersive digital experiences.

TikTok, Instagram and other social media channels have become increasingly influential among consumers in recent years when deciding where and what to buy. A physical space allows them to bring their digital platforms to new potential users. Shopping malls like Westfield see this as an opportunity to attract more visitors again after the Coronavirus-related drop in consumers.

In addition, to further enhance its online platform, TikTok recently announced that it will soon offer users the option to create videos up to three minutes long to make the app more attractive to influencers and creators.

f you are in London between July 22nd and August 8th, don’t miss this opportunity to live a unique experience.

You can book a workshop for creators at the TikTok For You House by clicking here.  And for general reservations click here.

The organic cotton manufacturer Cotonea is collaborating with the Research Institute for Textiles and Clothing Research at the Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences, the laboratories of Agroisolab GmbH and the environmental protection organization WWF Germany. The pilot project “Textile Tracker” is funded by the German Federal Foundation for the Environment (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt).

To identify the origin of the cotton, the isotopes of the cotton samples will be specifically analyzed in the laboratory. The initiators of the project want to investigate whether the chemical characteristics of the isotopes, i.e. a certain type of atoms, allow conclusions to be drawn about the method and region of cultivation as well as the nature of the soil. These are atomic species whose nuclei contain the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons.

Cotonea is one of the organic cotton manufacturers providing cotton samples for the laboratory project from its fair trade farming projects in Kyrgyzstan and Uganda. Founded in 2003 and owned by the traditional company Gebr. Elmer & Zweifel, the brand is personally familiar with all stages of its production chain, from cultivation, ginning and fiber production and spinning, to yarn finishing, surface forming, weaving and knitting, through surface finishing to ready-made garments.

For the analysis, cotton fabric mill Cotonea is providing cotton samples from Kyrgyzstan and Uganda. According to the manufacturers of Contena, the materials from the Swabian textile brand were particularly suitable for the first phase of the project, because they have been working with the same farmers from their own cultivation projects for years and can therefore provide samples from four different crop years that are pure in origin.

Starting with the cotton flock, the experts want to simulate various processing stages in the laboratory. The first results are expected by the end of the year.

Related articles:

• The German Supply Chain Law and its impact on Europe 
• The cotton of Xinjiang- forced labour and crimes against humanity 

For the first time, a law obliges companies to take responsibility for people in their supply chains. Respect for human rights is to be ensured through the application of certain due diligence obligations to protect the aforementioned legal positions. In this context, the legislator requires a comprehensive risk analysis as well as mutually supportive and interrelated preventive and corrective measures, all in order to avoid child and forced labor, inhumane working conditions and environmental destruction in production.

From 2023, all companies, regardless of their legal form, that have their registered office, head office or principal place of business as well as a branch office in Germany with more than 3,000 employees, and from 2024 companies with more than 1. 1,000 employees, will be obliged to identify risks of human rights violations and environmental destruction in their direct supply chains and, if necessary, also in those of indirect suppliers, to take countermeasures and to document them to the Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA).

Companies must apply far-reaching obligations in terms of organization, auditing and performance, as well as documentation and reporting. The question of whether a company has fulfilled its due diligence obligations is decided within the framework of an individual risk assessment and requires the inclusion of various factors such as the conditions and legal framework at the place of production (e.g. child labor in third world countries, occupational safety in textile production).

If due diligence obligations are not implemented, there is a risk that administrative infringement proceedings may be initiated. In particular, due to the highly formalized procedure associated with the various reporting obligations, it can be assumed that late or incomplete implementation will result in penalty proceedings with fines of up to EUR 800,000. Separate civil liability for damages was not excluded from the law. The general liability rules remain in force.

The industry associations, above all the Association of the German Textile and Fashion Industry (Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie), have long criticized a national law and the timing of its introduction in the midst of the Corona crisis, but they also see the need for it. But the introduction of a purely national law seems questionable to them, as they see in it a risk that it will thus weaken the competitiveness of their medium-sized industry and impose new additional bureaucratic burdens on domestic companies. “The law could lead to German companies becoming uncompetitive and having to leave the market. This would serve no one, least of all the inhabitants of the producing countries,” explains Uwe Mazura, Managing Director of the German Textile and Fashion Association.

Many companies also feel indirectly affected by the law, for example through price increases or their role as suppliers to large companies. Companies furthermore fear legal risks in terms of liability and doubt the practical possibility of effectively controlling the production standards of their suppliers. The law covers too few companies and makes too many exceptions to due diligence obligations. It denies those affected the right to compensation and, unfortunately, does not set a signal for climate protection in supply chains.

Across Germany, 600 companies are initially affected by the law. In the fashion sector, there are far fewer. Puma is one of them: “We support the intention of the Supply Chain Protection Act to ensure transparent and fair supply chains. The sports company Puma has been working on fair labor conditions with its suppliers for more than 20 years. For example, we have been an accredited member of the Fair Labor Association since 2007,” said the company’s headquarters in Herzogenaurach (Germany) in response to an inquiry from the German publisher Textilwirtschaft. 

Although the German supply chain law signifies a success for civil society and good news for all those who work under exploitative conditions in the supply chains of German companies, a European solution that covers all companies equally, regardless of their headquarters, is still awaited. “This would mean an unification of legislation at European level and would guarantee the validity of these rules for all market participants,” said a Puma spokesperson.

The German Supply Chain Act will be followed by other regulations. The European legislator has already come out in favor of a much stricter supply chain law. The European Commission’s proposal for a directive goes beyond the German Supply Chain Act and also provides for civil liability, among other things. The aim is to implement it in 2024.

In the fight against human rights violations and environmental destruction in supply chains, we are still a long way from reaching the goal, but with the German Supply Chain Act a first step is being made in the right direction.