The EU trademark law system does not have, unlike the US, a legal concept of “incontestability”. Instead, it has “acquiescence”, a defence against invalidity or infringement actions which can be raised against the owner of an earlier mark who has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of a later registered…
In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Madrid Protocol gave a European company priority of right in a trademark even without prior use in commerce. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the California district court that Bacardi’s use of BACARDI UNTAMEABLE for rum did not as a matter of law infringe…
The night setting on contentious administrative appeals in Spain On 14 January 2023, some rather fundamental changes are going to be implemented regarding trademark proceedings in Spain. These affect, firstly, trademark cancellation proceedings, and secondly, judicial appeals from rulings by the Spanish PTO. Spain is finally joining the rest of the EU Member States…
This decision by the High Court – Lavinia Deborah Osbourne v (1) Individuals Unknown (2) Ozone Networks Inc. – has now confirmed that NFTs should be considered property. The facts of this case are that Ms. Osbourne’s MetaMask wallet was used without her knowledge or permission and two NFTs representing digital pieces of art were…
Primo July we published an article about the Advocate General’s opinion on the use of protected designations of origin (PDO) for export to third countries. Read the article here. With the recent judgment from European Court of Justice (ECJ) in case C-159/20, it is established that the opinion has been followed in its substance. The…
On 26 November 2021, in BS-10861/2021-SHR, the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court found no likelihood of confusion between the EU-registrations to VITAYUMMY (used as ) and . Both for chewy vitamins in Class 5. The Court found that chewy vitamins should be considered to be a sub-category of dietary supplements in the form of fruit…
Like the previously invalidated bar on “disparaging” marks, the “immoral/scandalous” marks prohibition violated the First Amendment as a viewpoint-based restriction on free speech. The Lanham Act’s prohibition against registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment as a viewpoint-based restriction on expression, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. A divided Court affirmed a…
Readers might recall an earlier article (see here) discussing the positions of the General Court (GC) and the EUIPO’s Boards of Appeal (BoA) regarding (dis)similarity between alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. By way of a…
In case you are engaged in a “hot dispute” in this hot summer, so as to “cool-off” a bit, this is to start a discussion about settlement options for pending litigation. [A lawsuit taking a good long snooze …] A recent decision of the Austrian Supreme Court (short “OGH”) dealt with the procedural…
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…
