Distinctiveness is the characteristic of a trade mark which enables it to function as an indicator of the origin of goods and services.
The General Court (GC) has recently confirmed that the figurative European Union trademark no. 002810299 consisting of two parallel stripes on the side of a shoe lacked distinctiveness (T-307/23 of 23.10.2024 – Jima Projects vs. EUIPO). The decision is noteworthy, as it confirms previous case law that a “branding practice” does not automatically render…
After yet so many decisions denying trademark protection for slogans in Germany, the Federal Patent Court in Germany recently allowed registration of the slogan mark “Who stops you” (decision of the Federal Patent Court in Case 29 W (pat) 523/21). The trademark was filed for a variety of goods in Classes 9, 12 and 25,…
Chiquita Brands queens it over Red Queen – General Court, 29 May 2024, T-79/23 The General Court (GC) has annulled another Board of Appeal decision. That in itself is worth reporting as this happens in only about 15% of cases. The Court held that, contrary to the Board’s decision, and despite both marks covering identical…
The judgment of the General Court (GC) concerns a textbook case and addresses the typical arguments in trademark conflicts in the cosmetics sector. Facts The Applicant, Azalee Cosmetics, applied for registration of the following sign as an EU trademark for cosmetic products (class 3), cosmetic utensils (class 21), corresponding retail services (class 35) and beauty…
To which extent can the General Court review decisions by the EUIPO Boards of Appeal (BoA) is an issue never properly addressed, and one that the CJEU has found to be “significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law”. Thus, with its order of July 11, 2023, it allowed an appeal…
The Delhi High Court recently in the case of Coty Germany GmBH v. Xeryus Retail Private Limited (CS(COMM) 1298/2018 & I.A. 8603/2023) permanently restrained two websites, namely perfumery.co.in and unboxed.in, from selling perfume tester bottles bearing the “Calvin Klein” or “cK” trademarks and imposed INR 1,00,000 (approx. USD 1,200) to be paid to Coty Germany GmBH…
The General Court of the European Union (“GCEU”), annulling the Board of Appeal (“BOA”) decision, found that L’Oreal’s K K WATER mark is not confusingly similar to Heinze’s earlier K mark. It was not disputed that the hair treatment goods covered by L’Oreal’s K K WATER mark in Class 3 (a sub-brand of its leading house…
Dispute and Facts Munich SL owns an EU registration of 2004 for the following figurative mark: This representation means that the crossed stripes are placed on the side of a shoe. The registration covers ʻSports footwearʼ (class 25). In 2010, Munich SL sued Deichmann SE before the Regional Court of Düsseldorf for the infringement of…
The prince and his prince house – where he lived happily ever after The Swiss Federal Administrative Court, as the appeal authority in opposition proceedings, supported the decision of the FIIP and ruled that there was a likelihood of confusion between the younger trademark “Prinzenhaus” (engl. prince house) and the earlier trademark “Prinz” (engl. prince)…
The Board erred by failing to consider whether the registered BROOKLYN BREW SHOP mark has acquired distinctiveness for beer-making kits. In an effort by the owners of the mark BROOKLYN BREWERY to cancel registration of the mark BROOKLYN BREW SHOP, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the Trademark Trial…
