On 1 January 2019, the amendments to the Swedish Trademark Act enter into force. In many aspects, the implementation is straightforward and what anyone familiar with EU trademark law would expect. This includes the removal of the requirement for graphical representation, the possibility for the applicant to require an opponent to prove use of an…

Whilst it is highly debatable whether the EU Withdrawal Agreement will get through the UK Parliament, the chances are that if any revised deal is struck later, the IP provisions will remain unchanged.  (The Johnson brothers, and even Jacob Rees-Mogg are unlikely to be terribly exercised about matters such as the continued application post- 31…

In what has been considered a surprising decision (see for example previous comments in this blog here), the CJEU has recently held that the proprietor of a mark is entitled to oppose a third party which, without the proprietor’s consent,  removes the sign from products and affixes other signs in its place, with a view…

In BASIC NET SpA vs EUIPO, (case C-547/17 of Sept. 6, 2018), shortly after the recent Nestlè/Mondelez KIT KAT case (C‑84/17P, C-85/17 P and C-95/17 P; see ‘CJEU on the Kit Kat shape and acquired distinctiveness of EU trade marks for shapes’ in this blog), the CJEU again tackled the issue of how and where…

In a contribution published in Berichten IE 2018/4, De Brauw lawyers Tobias Cohen Jehoram, Carlos van Staveren and Renate Keijser analyse all IP rulings handed down by the Dutch Supreme Court this century. The analysis helps IP specialists identify the right strategy in choosing and formulating grounds when appealing to the Supreme Court and how…

  On 25 July 2018 (C-129/17), the CJEU decided that de-branding and rebranding of goods prior to any trade within the EEA without the trademark proprietor’s consent constituted ‘use in the course of trade’ of the originally affixed trademark and could, therefore, be prohibited by the proprietor of that mark. The judgment broadens the concept…

As reported earlier this year, in a ruling dated February 12, 2018 by the Commercial Court of Kyiv in the case no. 910/14972/17, the judge effectively applied a five-year non-use grace period, as provided for under the Association Agreement with the EU (Art. 198), and rejected the non-use cancellation action, which was based on the…

In a recent Notice to Stakeholders, the European Commission has highlighted a possible outcome for customs and enforcement, following the British exit from the EU. Whilst this is subject to transitional provisions and the withdrawal agreement at large, it serves to reiterate the cliff edge which may conceivably be presented to UK based brand owners…