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…
Expired utility patent described the advantages of product configuration trade dress for “a beveled scalloped upper edge of a metal fastener.” The federal district court in Chicago properly determined trade dress for the design of conveyer belt fasteners owned by Flexible Steel Lacing Company (Flexco) was invalid as functional and could not be asserted against…
Red Bull GmbH v Big Horn UK Limited & Ors [2020] EWHC 124 (Ch) This case is an interesting commentary on the route that rights holders can pursue in order to challenge lookalike products. Historically, proprietors of well-known brands, particularity in the FMCG market, have found it difficult to succeed in an Article 9(2)(b) claim…
There is no per se rule providing that dismissal without prejudice of claims involving a fee-shifting statute such as the Lanham Act necessarily causes a defendant to suffer legal prejudice from being denied an opportunity to seek attorney fees. Defendants in case brought by a pet toy maker did not suffer legal harm by the…
Jeroen Muyldermans and Paul Maeyaert, both experienced IP litigators at the renowned Belgian law firm Altius, have undertaken the humungous task of compiling, analysing, structuring and presenting the case law deriving from the General Court and Court of Justice in Luxembourg as well as the Boards of Appeal at the EUIPO on the topic…
(Updated as of 21.05.2020 due to further changes in legislation and to provide clarifications) Austria, as many other countries, adopted legal measures to extend deadlines with a view to the COVID-19 crisis. As the provisions are all but crystal clear, this is to give you an overview of which running deadlines in trademark (and other…
In February this year a dispute between the law firm FOCUS Advokater (“FOCUS Lawyers” in English) and the accounting firm Beierholm was decided by the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court (BS-40894/2019 SHR). The case concerned the use of the name BEIERHOLM FOKUS which FOCUS Advokater found to be an infringement of their trademark rights…
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…
On 25 February 2020, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have officially withdrawn their trade mark applications for the words “SUSSEX ROYAL” and “SUSSEX ROYAL THE FOUNDATION OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX”. The couple further announced that they will stop using the brand from Spring 2020. The couple launched their brand last April…
“What the FACK just happened?!”, some thought, when the CJEU delivered its judgment on the registrability of the trademark FACK JU GÖHTE on 27 February 2020. In case you are unfamiliar with the case, FACK JU is a phonetic transcription in German of “fuck you” and GÖHTE alludes to the late German writer Goethe. Following…
