With decision C-783/18 P of 12 December 2019, the CJEU upheld the GC decision (Case T 313/17) that a three-dimensional trademark consisting of a shape of an amphora was distinctive enough to be granted registration. In our earlier comment (see here), we had voiced some doubts about the GC’s conclusion. Also in view of the…
On 30 January 2020, the General Court of the European Union confirmed the Board of Appeal’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by Julius Sämann against the EUTM application for the sign shown above, based (inter alia) on the silhouette of its “magic tree”: (Case no. T-559/19). The Court agreed with the Board of Appeal…
On 16 December 2019, the Swedish Patent- and Market Court delivered a judgment on the registration of the company name GDL AB, reversing a long-standing practice of the Swedish Companies Registration Office (“Bolagsverket”) when it comes to the assessment of distinctiveness of company names. Why is the above relevant on a trademark blog one may…
An exclusive licensee that did not own the mark outright when the suit began lacked standing to sue for infringement. An exclusive licensee of a trademark when a trademark infringement suit began—which only became the owner of the mark mid-litigation—lacked standing to bring a trademark infringement action, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans…
By judgment of 19 December 2019, T-690/18, the General Court delivered the second victory to Sony over EUIPO in the same case concerning its EUTM “VITA” and registration thereof for a number of goods in class 9 such as software and data carriers. The contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO…
Is this the (only) ONE? The General Court denies likelihood of confusion, contrary to EUIPO In one of its last decisions in…
Many trade mark owners will rejoice in CJEU’s decision in Skykick this week as the CJEU ruled that overly broad specifications will not automatically render a registered mark invalid and that the lack of intention to use the mark at the time of its application will not necessarily result in bad faith. Is this a…
Facts The plaintiff provides orthodontal treatment under his trade name Polzar. The defendant runs a network of orthodontists which assists them in marketing their services. The defendant had placed an Adwords ad on Google for the network and used the plaintiff’s trade name “Polzar” as a keyword. The ad itself did not mention the name…
Two sports companies, Sports Group Denmark A/S (“Sports Group”) and WaterNlife ApS (“WaterNlife”) conflicted over the use of ENDURANCE as a trademark for sports clothing. Sports Group had registered the device trademark However, the trademark was not used as registered. Mostly, Sports Group used the mark in a much simpler and minimalistic version that looked…
The CJEU quite often agrees with its General Court, so when it does not it’s always interesting to see why. In the GC’s judgment (T-253/17, – here previously commented) the GC had considered unlikely that consumers purchase a product because it is contained in a recyclable packaging, so that the trademark Der Grüne Punkt, whose…
