Case law

The body of law drawn from the precedents set by earlier decisions.

Case law, Evidence, Lack of distinctiveness, National marks, Registrability, Sign used in the course of trade, Switzerland, Trademark

(MLL Meyerlustenberger Lachenal Froriep AG)/ /Leave a comment

CeramTec GmbH is the owner of the color trade mark IR 1‘109‘076 claiming protection for a shade of pink (Pantone 677, see image). At the beginning of 2012, CeramTec applied for the extension of protection to Switzerland for said trade mark in connection with goods of class 10: “femoral head spheres, acetabular cup, all the…

Case law, Distinctiveness, Norway, Trademark

(Protector IPC)/ /Leave a comment

  In April, the Oslo District Court partially relied on EUIPO Guidelines in finding that this trade mark is distinctive (judgment of 11. April 2017, case 16-135037TVI-OTIR/07).The mark had been rejected by the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) and the Board of Appeal as being descriptive and non-distinctive for “ammunition, projectiles and cartridges”. Norway is…

Bundesgerichtshof, Case law, Design Rights, Germany, Infringement

(Löffel Abrar )/ /Leave a comment

Germany is a key venue for international trade fairs. So it is no surprise that trade fairs are tempting targets for counterfeiters and infringers. Right owners must rely on quick and effective relief if they want to avoid an impairment of their rights. However, they should be aware of the peculiarities of German law in…

Appeal, Case law, CJEU, Spain

(Garrigues)/ /Leave a comment

The Alicante Court of Appeal has concluded that the use of comparison lists in the marketing of smell-alike perfumes constitutes an unlawful form of comparative advertising, even when it is the consumers themselves that are making use of these lists at a sales website. This latest case ruled on new forms of using comparison lists…

Case law, National law, The Netherlands

(Bird & Bird)/ /Leave a comment

That is the question that was recently answered by the Board of Appeal of the Dutch Advertising Code Authority. The TM symbol stands for “trademark” and is traditionally used for unregistered trademarks in various jurisdictions such as the US. Conversely, the ® symbol is used to indicate a trademark has been registered. However, in the…

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),…

Appeal, Case law, Company names, Domain name, Lack of distinctiveness, National law, National marks, similarity of goods and services, Switzerland, Trade name, Trademark

(MLL Meyerlustenberger Lachenal Froriep AG)/ /Leave a comment

The Federal Administrative Court partially overturned a decision of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IGE) refusing protection for Apple’s word mark “iMessage” for telecommunication services in class 38.   The Administrative Court agreed with the IPO that “iMessage” lacked original distinctiveness for messaging services, because such services were closely linked to the internet,…

Case law, United States

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City has affirmed a district court’s decision that Macy’s Merchandising Group’s MAISON JULES line of women’s clothing—a private brand sold almost exclusively in Macy’s stores—did not infringe the trademark JOULES, owned by clothing retailer Joules Limited. Consumer confusion between the parties’ marks was not likely. Although the…

Case law, Germany

(Löffel Abrar )/ /Leave a comment

The Cologne Higher Regional Court was asked to decide on an alleged infringement of German unfair competition law by the look of a trade dress of tea drinks bottles. In summary, the court rejected the claim since the bottles of the parties showed different product and manufacturer names (judgment of 28 April 2017, Case 6…

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…