In February this year a dispute between the law firm FOCUS Advokater (“FOCUS Lawyers” in English) and the accounting firm Beierholm was decided by the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court (BS-40894/2019 SHR). The case concerned the use of the name BEIERHOLM FOKUS which FOCUS Advokater found to be an infringement of their trademark rights…

The USPTO properly refused to register ARTISAN NY for clothing because, like the registered mark ARTESANO NEW YORK CITY, the proposed mark conveyed the impression of clothing made by skilled tradespersons in New York. Substantial evidence supported the USPTO’s refusal to register the mark ARTISAN NY, for clothing, on likelihood of confusion grounds, the U.S….

Polish Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, 9 May 2019, Case No. I CSK 263/18 The Polish Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) overturned the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal (case no. I ACa 962/16) on the basis that courts should assess the overall similarity of trademarks, whether it is phonetic, graphical or conceptual. Conceptual differences not…

The question of how far descriptive or non-distinctive trademarks which somehow managed to be registered may be enforced is of particular relevance in jurisdictions like Germany which acknowledge their incontestability ten years after registration. The more recent approach of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was that it accepted likelihood of confusion also in a…

On 15 March 2018, Marriott Worldwide Corp., assisted by Anna Reid (D. Young & Co.), scored a major victory at the General Court (case T-151/17) against EUIPO and Mr. Johann Graf. Johann Graf had registered the „winged bull“ device or „taurophon“ as shown above on the right as an EUTM for, inter alia, class 43…