Company names, Domain name, EUTM, Genuine use, Level of similarity of marks, Names, National marks, Opposition, The Netherlands, Trademark

(NLO Shieldmark)/ /Leave a comment

In a decision of a Dutch District Court earlier this year[1], the American fast-food chain Wendy’s suffered a loss against a local Dutch snack restaurant, which bears the name WENDY’S. The trademark registration owned by the same snack restaurant blocks the American chain to enter the market. Although this case has similarities with the story…

Trademark

( Trevisan & Cuonzo) and (Trevisan & Cuonzo)/ /Leave a comment

Following the Court of Justice decision that “saved” the 2002 EU LAMBRETTA trademark from a decision of partial revocation for non-use rendered by the EUIPO Opposition Division[1], on 28 March 2017, the Italian Supreme Court ordered the revocation for non-use of three LAMBRETTA trademarks registered before the Italian Trademark Office in 1948, 1968 and 1969…

Article 8(4) EUTMR, Opposition, Trade name

(BomhardIP)/ /Leave a comment

On 5 April 2017, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in the EUIPO vs. Gilbert Szajner matter (C‑598/14 P), also known as LAGUIOLE – the EUTM that was at issue. The case concerns an opposition based on the French business name Forge de Laguiole. The use and, in principle, protection of the business name…

Case law, United States

(Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US)/ /Leave a comment

A federal district court did not err in awarding a preliminary injunction to Kourtney, Kim, and Khloe Kardashian and their companies—2Die4Kourt, Kimsaprincess Inc., and Khlomoney Inc.—that barred Hillair Capital Management and four related individuals and entities from using the Kardashians’ trademarks, the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled. The preliminary injunction was…

Lack of distinctiveness, Registrability, Switzerland

(Tradamarca)/ /Leave a comment

The Swiss Federal Administrative Court overturned a decision of the Swiss Trademark Office and allowed the word marks “SCHWEIZER SALINEN”, “SALINE SVIZZERE”, “SALINES SUISSES”, “SWISS SALINES”, “SWISS SALT WORKS” on the ground that these were distinctive by virtue of the monopoly that the Applicant enjoys on the Swiss salt market. Schweizer Salinen AG’s five Swiss…

3D Trademark, Bundesgerichtshof, Germany

(Lubberger Lehment )/ /Leave a comment

This important decision by the German Federal Supreme Court of 15 January 2017 is about how the protection against copying under unfair competition law interplays with trademark and patent law: The plaintiff manufactures and sells anchor bolts which are used to mount traffic signs: The defendant offers the following bolts: Until 2006, the plaintiff’s bolt…

Case law, Confusion, General Court

(De Simone & Partners S.P.A.) and (Bugnion S.p.A)/ /Leave a comment

The case of CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG v Policolor, looks at traditional issues as likelihood of confusion, but also at the thorny issue of whether earlier rights need to be valid at the time of issuing a decision or only at the relevant date for the cause of action. Lackfabrik owned the…

Case law, Denmark, Infringement

, (Gorrissen Federspiel)/ /Leave a comment

To what extend can a business claim reputed trademark as a basis for infringement proceedings or for raising objections against another business’ trademark registration in Denmark? A recent judgement of the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court (the Court) between ECCO and EKKOfonden has given some further guidance on this matter, indicating that even in…

Legal costs, United Kingdom

(Stobbs IP)/ /Leave a comment

The UKIPO is one of the Tribunals that has the power to grant costs awards against the losing party. And whilst they are usually more significant than the specific amounts granted by the EUIPO, they are usually awarded according to a published ‘scale’. This scale is almost always followed, but not always! The general practice on…

Case law, United States

(Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US)/ /Leave a comment

The federal district court in Charlotte, North Carolina, did not err in finding thatGrayson O Company’s registered mark “F 450” for a line of hair care products was not infringed by Agadir International’s hair care products sold under the mark HAIR SHIELD 450°, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, has held. despite the…