It does not happen every day that you can see a trademark case decided by the EU General Court with a Polish claimant (EUTM applicant), represented by his Polish attorney, with a Polish judge as the rapporteur and even with Polish national acting as the EUIPO’s representative. One of very few non-Polish aspects of this…

The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently declared invalid Birkenstock’s UK trade mark registration for the pattern on the sole of their shoes. The decision of the Appointed Person, James Mellor QC, not only considers a slightly unusual mark, it also provides helpful guidance on factors to consider if a brand owner is trying to…

Shape mark: form of a drinking bottle lacks distinctiveness in relation to perfumes A recent judgement of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court highlights the strict practice for the registration of shape marks. The court ruled that a 3D mark for perfumes cannot be entered in the trade mark register for perfumes in Class 3, since…

The Court of Appeal (‘CoA’) recently published its decision on the validity of two shape mark registrations for the shape of London black taxis. Unfortunately, it has not improved the position for those seeking protection for trade dress in the UK. Pure recognition of the sign is still not sufficient basis to lay claim to…

This case concerns the first appeal from a Hearing Officer of the UK Intellectual Property Office (“UK IPO”) to the Scottish Court of Session.   The dispute at issue was between CCHG Limited t/a Vaporized (the “Appellant”) and Vapouriz Limited (the “Respondent”).  The Respondent had brought an invalidity action before the UK IPO based on…

In the M/S. Indeutsch International case concerning the validity of the “Chevron” device shown      above (T-20/16 of 21 June 2017), the General Court held that the mark (described in the registration as “a repeated geometric design”) could not be seen as representing the appearance of the goods for which it was registered, namely knitting needles and crochet…

  In April, the Oslo District Court partially relied on EUIPO Guidelines in finding that this trade mark is distinctive (judgment of 11. April 2017, case 16-135037TVI-OTIR/07).The mark had been rejected by the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) and the Board of Appeal as being descriptive and non-distinctive for “ammunition, projectiles and cartridges”. Norway is…