On 13 March 2024, the General Court (3rd and 7th Chamber) issued two judgments dealing with weak marks in the sense the most trademark practitioners applaud, namely granting descriptive elements in trademarks only a minimal scope of protection. In both cases, this led to the GC confirming the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal…

A news publication could not rely on First Amendment protection for its use of a mark even though it made no attempt to parody the original. A news publication named with a common English language word could not invoke the First Amendment to protect it against a trademark claim against the owner of that mark—even…

In October 2023, the Danish Supreme Court ruled in a trademark case concerning the trademark “TREK”.  In recent years the Danish Supreme Court has rarely dealt with trademark disputes (due to the relatively strict requirements of leave from the Appeals Permission Board to appeal a decision to the Supreme Court), making this case particularly interesting….

A recent decision by the General Court deals with the weight of figurative elements in the overall impression of a sign. Facts The applicant applied for the registration of the following sign as an EU trademark for ‘publication of printed matter for advertising purposes’ (class 35) and for ‘entertainment services’ in class 41: The intervener…

If the third-party marks and opposer’s marks are identical, the opposer’s marks and the applicant’s marks are compared to see if they are identical or non-identical for identical goods or services. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal…

The court found that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) decision was supported by substantial evidence. A real estate brokerage’s proposed mark was likely to be confused with a prior registration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The TTAB’s prior analysis as to each of the DuPont factors was supported by…

District court failed to draw inferences in favor of nonmoving party in finding no likelihood of confusion. The federal district court in Miami erred in awarding summary judgment for a title insurance company regarding its use of the mark ‘FOREMOST,’ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held. The Eleventh Circuit found…

The General Court of the European Union (“GCEU”), annulling the Board of Appeal (“BOA”) decision, found that L’Oreal’s K K WATER mark is not confusingly similar to Heinze’s earlier K mark. It was not disputed that the hair treatment goods covered by L’Oreal’s K K WATER mark in Class 3 (a sub-brand of its leading house…

A judgment of the General Court demonstrates the controversial and problematic nature of retail services marks. The ALDI/ALDIANO Case The case concerns Aldi, the discount chain. An Aldi entity (in the following “Aldi”) filed an application for the declaration of invalidity against the EUTM ALDIANO, registered for “alcoholic beverages (except beers)” (class 33). Aldi relied…

Manufacturer of “Mystic Tan” machines failed to show consumers were likely to be confused by salon’s use of its own solution in Mystic Tan booths. The federal district court in Akron, Ohio, did not err in finding that a manufacturer of tanning booths under the mark “Mystic Tan” failed to show a likelihood of success…