It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try one of the links below or a search?
Popular Articles:
-
Oh Cannabis!
-
Cocktail lovers – watch out! Are alcoholic drinks similar to non-alcoholic ones (and if only for trademark purposes)?
-
Geographical Indications: India’s PGI application for ‘Basmati’
-
No monopoly on blue and silver for Red Bull
-
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Time to rethink the EUTM “unitary character”.
-
Trademark case: ACT 898 Products Inc. v. WS Industries Inc., USA
Recent Articles:
-
Registration of the protected designation of origin “HALLOUMI” in the EU – The General Court comes to the rescue of the European Commission and of the Republic of Cyprus
-
‘Don’t fence me in’: what if your locally used trade name is in between one proprietor’s earlier trade name and a corresponding younger trade mark? – the finale of the Classic Coach Company case
-
Samsung v Swatch: the UK Court of Appeal departs from the EU approach to the E-Commerce Directive ‘safe harbour defence’
-
Healthy things and Paris Bar – two new GC decisions on “weak marks”
-
Anti- Counterfeiting, Czech Republic, EU trade mark law, Exhaustion of rights, Grey online sales, Parallel imports, Trademark
Information claim the Czech way: smell of partial victory for Chanel against online retailer
-
UK trade mark law post-Brexit: the UK Court of Appeal diverges from the CJEU in statutory acquiescence
Random Articles:
-
Trademark case: Singh Management Co., LLC v. Singh Michigan Homes, LLC, USA
-
HARRY’S BAR is dry – General Court on the similarity of food and beverages to restaurant and bar services
-
Lawyers acting as strawmen to clear out the deadwood from the Austrian trademark register
-
Trademark case: Sunless, Inc. v. Palm Beach Tan, Inc., USA
-
Case law, Denmark, similarity of goods and services, Similarity of marks, Weak elements in trademarks
Denmark: FOCUS and FOKUS in focus
-
USA: Emerald Cities Collaborative, Inc. v. Roese, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1703, 13 December 2016
-
The EUTM has unitary effects… with exceptions proving the rule: combit and Kerrygold
-
Guidance issued by UK customs on Applications for Action post-Brexit
-
It’s not over yet for Skykick
-
USA: Blanco GmbH + Co. KG v. Vlanco Industries, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, No. 15-10692, 4 February 2016