The German Federal Supreme recently ruled that the use of only one trademark in search engine advertisements by Amazon was trademark infringing when the underlying link led to a list of offers that included not only products offered under that brand but also those of third parties (Decision of the Federal Supreme Court of 25…

A licensor’s failure to disclose in discovery an agreement acknowledging that a third party owned the mark was properly sanctioned. Two beach merchandise retailers asserting rights to use the mark “WINGS” in connection with their stores will have to go to trial to sort out their competing rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond…

On 22 July 2019, the Second Board of Appeal at EUIPO issued a decision partially invalidating the EUTM ‘MONOPOLY’. The reason for the invalidation was that the Board considered the EUTM proprietor to have been in bad faith when it filed the application for the EUTM insofar as it included goods and services already covered…

Some (among whom, the truly yours) wondered, when in late June the US Supreme Court held unconstitutional the Lanham Act provision (15 U. S. C. §1052(a)) prohibiting registration of trademarks consisting of or comprising immoral or scandalous matter because it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and therefore violates the free speech clause[1], whether freedom…

Are e-commerce websites allowed to sell products of companies engaged in direct selling? The Delhi High Court of India, in its judgment of 8 July 2019, here, held platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal, 1MG and Healthkart guilty of tortious interference with the contractual relationship of the plaintiffs with their direct sellers. The court applied…

The USPTO properly refused to register ARTISAN NY for clothing because, like the registered mark ARTESANO NEW YORK CITY, the proposed mark conveyed the impression of clothing made by skilled tradespersons in New York. Substantial evidence supported the USPTO’s refusal to register the mark ARTISAN NY, for clothing, on likelihood of confusion grounds, the U.S….

For over five years, Canadian trademark practitioners have been preparing for Canada’s new trademark law. We have been advising clients, writing articles, attending seminars, reviewing new Regulations & Practice Notices, and updating our internal systems preparing for the most significant changes in one hundred and fifty years. After several delays, most sections of the new…

While the new EUTMR 2017/1001 deleted any reference to disclaimers – previously provided by Article 37(2) of EUTMR No. 207/2009 – both the EU Directive 2008/95 and the Recast Directive 2015/2436 neither allowed nor prohibited disclaimers at national level. Few Member States had disclaimers on their book (Sweden, Ireland and Latvia) and from Sweden the…