As we all know, the EUTM Regulation 2017/1001 now requires the applicant to indicate the goods and services for which the protection of the trademark is sought with sufficient clarity and precision to enable the competent authorities and economic operators, on that sole basis, to determine the extent of the protection sought. But what if…

Last month the Dutch District Court of The Hague decided in case C/09/520643 / HA ZA that there is no likelihood of confusion between SINA rice and SITA rice. This is somewhat remarkable considering earlier decisions on similar comparisons between four letter signs in relation to foodstuffs. The reason for denying likelihood of confusion lies…

In a case earlier this spring, the Swedish Patent and Market Court dismissed an infringement action based on the reputed mark SOFIERO in relation to beers against SOFIERO KAFFEROSTERI used for coffee. The court concluded that coffee beans and ground coffee are dissimilar to beer and that the relevant consumer is not likely to find…

The Federal Administrative Court partially overturned a decision of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IGE) refusing protection for Apple’s word mark “iMessage” for telecommunication services in class 38.   The Administrative Court agreed with the IPO that “iMessage” lacked original distinctiveness for messaging services, because such services were closely linked to the internet,…

On 18 February 2016, the General Court issued its decision in the HARRY’S BAR case (T-711/13 and T-716-13), where, adopting a rather broad brush approach, it held that food and beverage products were similar – at least to a certain degree – to services of provision of food and drink in class 43. Harry’s New…