The Opposition Division has partially upheld an opposition filed by Jaguar Land Rover (“Jaguar”) against EUTM application no.16778672 for the figurative mark, , applied for by luxury fashion designer, Philipp Plein. Jaguar based its opposition on earlier EUTM registrations covering several variations of its logo, as well as unregistered rights in these marks. These earlier…

This post is the second of four, considering the decision of Smith J in Lidl v Tesco [2023] EWHC 873 (Ch), focusing on the passing off element of the judgment. Many were surprised that Lidl was successful on this ground, as it was not a traditional case of selling goods as those of another. Background…

This post is the first of four looking at the decision of Smith J in Lidl & another v Tesco & another [2023] EWHC 873 (Ch). It will focus on the s.10(3) trade mark infringement elements of the judgment and the potential impact this may have for rights holders. The Court’s findings: of copyright infringement…

The Falsified Medicines Directive (2011/62/EU) (FMD) was introduced in 2011 with the aim of safeguarding the public against medicinal products within the EU whose identity, history or source had been falsified. The FMD requires that the packaging of these products now bears certain safety features, such as a “unique identifier” verifying their authenticity and an…

In the High Court case of Sazerac Brands, LLC & Ors v Liverpool Gin Distillery Limited & Ors [2020] EWHC 2424 (Ch), conducted under the Shorter Trial Scheme, the Defendants’ use of its AMERICAN EAGLE sign was found to have infringed the Claimants’ registered rights in its mark, EAGLE RARE. The First Defendant’s UK trade…

Further to Estelle Derclaye’s Kluwer Blog Post, a copy of which can be found here, we take a look at the practical consequences for manufacturers of the recent request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) by the Belgian Company Court, within copyright infringement proceedings brought by SI…

In what has been considered a surprising decision (see for example previous comments in this blog here), the CJEU has recently held that the proprietor of a mark is entitled to oppose a third party which, without the proprietor’s consent,  removes the sign from products and affixes other signs in its place, with a view…