If a mark is revoked after never being used, may the trademark owner obtain compensation of the “damages” incurred before revocation took effect? This what the CJEU was asked to decide in case C 622/18 (“Cooper International Spirits”), decided on 26 March 2020, and while the decision might be technically correct, it does not really…
As has already been reported on this blog (see here), the Court of Justice has annulled the decision of the General Court saying that the refusal of EUTM application FACK JU GÖHTE for being (allegedly) contrary to accepted principles of morality was incorrect (judgment of 26 February 2020, C- 240/18P). This refusal raised a number…
With decision C-783/18 P of 12 December 2019, the CJEU upheld the GC decision (Case T 313/17) that a three-dimensional trademark consisting of a shape of an amphora was distinctive enough to be granted registration. In our earlier comment (see here), we had voiced some doubts about the GC’s conclusion. Also in view of the…
The CJEU quite often agrees with its General Court, so when it does not it’s always interesting to see why. In the GC’s judgment (T-253/17, – here previously commented) the GC had considered unlikely that consumers purchase a product because it is contained in a recyclable packaging, so that the trademark Der Grüne Punkt, whose…
In the past few weeks, almost contemporaneously, two courts cases dealt with the scope of protection of the PDO “Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena” and the PGI “Aceto Balsamico di Modena”. Both courts agreed that ACETO and BALSAMICO are generic and common terms which do not fall under the scope of protection of PDOs/PGIs, but…
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…
The EU legislation does not provide for a definition of the concept of bad faith, but the EU case law in course of years has developed a number of criteria which offer guidance in assessing when a trademark was filed in bad faith. In the latest bad faith case, Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ…
The concept of genuine use of a trademark should be the same for all sorts of products/services, but for pharmaceuticals this is not always the case. Given the particular regulatory regime which applies to pharmaceuticals, often many years pass before the marketing authorization to any given new pharmaceutical specialty is granted. During that time, do…
Some (among whom, the truly yours) wondered, when in late June the US Supreme Court held unconstitutional the Lanham Act provision (15 U. S. C. §1052(a)) prohibiting registration of trademarks consisting of or comprising immoral or scandalous matter because it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and therefore violates the free speech clause[1], whether freedom…
While the new EUTMR 2017/1001 deleted any reference to disclaimers – previously provided by Article 37(2) of EUTMR No. 207/2009 – both the EU Directive 2008/95 and the Recast Directive 2015/2436 neither allowed nor prohibited disclaimers at national level. Few Member States had disclaimers on their book (Sweden, Ireland and Latvia) and from Sweden the…
