conceptual difference, Confusion, cosmetic trademarks, descriptive elements, pharmaceutical trademarks, Weak elements in trademarks

, (BomhardIP)/ /Leave a comment

Three recent General Court judgments concerning oppositions between trademark in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic fields have caught our attention. In all three cases, the marks were found similar essentially on account of common rather descriptive elements. MUNDIPHARMA/MULTIPHARMA – T-144/16 of 7 November 2017: the EUTM application MULTIPHARMA in classes 5, 35, 42 was refused based…

General Court, Trademark

, (BomhardIP)/ /Leave a comment

Muesli – denied recognition in its birth place (T-103/16) Refusal of EUTM application for based on earlier mark ALPEN for cereals   For many Europeans, the Alps are a common denominator for mountains, milk, dairy products, muesli, chocolate, ski, hiking, peacefulness or natural wonders. However, the General Court had a slightly different view. In its…

Case law, Community design

(BomhardIP)/ /Leave a comment

On 18 July 2017, the General Court held that the two designs shown here produced the same overall impression (case T-57/16; not yet available in English). The EUIPO – both first and second instance – had held otherwise. The Cancellation Division described the designs as superimposed C’s (Chanel’s logo) and 3’s (the design under attack),…

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…

Confusion, Level of similarity of marks, Opposition

(BomhardIP)/ /Leave a comment

The GOLDEN BALLS saga continues: after losing in the last round before the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, Golden Balls Limited has once again taken its case (or cause?) to the General Court in Luxembourg (“GC”) (pending case T‑8/17). For recollection: in 2007, two applications for registration of GOLDEN BALLS as EU trademarks were…

CJEU, Infringement action, Legal costs

(BomhardIP) and (Harte-Bavendamm Rechtsanwälte)/ /Leave a comment

CJEU: reimbursement of legal costs in IP infringement proceedings must not be disproportionate or even insignificant On 28 July 2016, the CJEU ruled in a case concerning the reimbursement of legal costs in a patent infringement action in Belgium (United Video Properties Inc. v. Telenet NV, C‑57/15). It declared that a flat fee reimbursement system,…