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…

In a recent case decided by the Court of Venice (decision n. 2355/2018), MHCS, the producer, inter alia, of the famous Veuve Cliquot champagne, prevailed against a prosecco producer who used orange labels on its prosecco, based on its abstract colour mark “jaune orange” registered as an EUTM. However, absent proof of acquired distinctiveness for…

With decision n. 482 of 2019 the Italian Court of Torino decided on whether the beauty and the history of a car may be reasons to deserve copyright protection. The case regards the company Tecnomodel S.r.l. producer of miniature cars, including the models in scale 1/18 and 1/43 of the cars Alfa Romeo Giulietta SZ and…

The EUTMR No. 2015/2424, as well as the Directive No. 2015/2436, have introduced various changes to EU and national trademark laws but both failed to provide transitory rules determining what is the applicable law for trademarks registered before the entry into force of the new law. In case C-21/18, Textilis Ltd and Ozgur Keskin v…

In the US to indicate two things which are truly… incomparable, one says “oranges and apples”. In continental EU, we  say “apples and pears”. This case deals indeed with apples and pears. On 31 January 2019, the General Court of the European Union had to decide about the similarity between an apple and a pear…

With decision of 15.10.2018 on case T-7/17, the General Court (GC) has clarified an important factor for applicability of Article 8(3) EUTMR, on the prohibition for registration of a trademark filed by an agent or a representative of the trademark owner. However, as the GC’s decision has been appealed (C-809/18 P), we will have to…

In law, perhaps one of the most famous aphorisms is “I know it when I see it”, which Justice Potter Stewart used to describe his threshold test for obscenity (in Jacobellis v. Ohio,  378 U.S. 184 (1964)). The CJEU, in case C‑310/17, delivered a decision on copyright which in a way confirms this aphorism and…

Sometimes cases are not really that interesting for their outcome, but rather for how the Courts get there. In this case, Wajos GmbH filed a 3D mark consisting of a glass container, shown below, designating various goods in classes 29, 30, 32 and 33. The EUIPO’s examination division and Board of Appeal (BOA) held that…

It is quite uncommon to have an administrative law Court ruling on IP matters, but sometimes it happens.  The Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Lazio Regional Administrative Court, hereinafter TAR) was recently (decision of T.A.R. of Lazio No. 9050 of 29 August 2018) called to rule on pharmaceuticals parallel imports, more specifically whether or not…