Lord Neuberger, or Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury to his friends, has taken aim at the need for clarity around legal precedent in the post-Brexit landscape. Having spent decades on the front line of statutory application and legal interpretation, Lord Neuberger seems well placed to comment on the legal ramifications of removing the CJEU as…
In mid-July the Russian Supreme Court released an interesting decision in the dispute between one of the largest and most recognized non-profit organizations against a copycat suspected of raising money from confused donors all over the country. The judges decided in favor of the plaintiff despite the fact that it did not possess a trademark…
In the M/S. Indeutsch International case concerning the validity of the “Chevron” device shown above (T-20/16 of 21 June 2017), the General Court held that the mark (described in the registration as “a repeated geometric design”) could not be seen as representing the appearance of the goods for which it was registered, namely knitting needles and crochet…
Lanham Act claims for false advertising and trademark infringement brought by Sausage company Parks, asserting its PARKS mark for sausage against Tyson Foods and Hillshire Brands Company (collectively, Tyson), were without merit, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has decided, affirming a ruling by a federal district court. Parks did not state a valid…
County Kerry in Ireland, a beautiful region in the South known for its cattle breeding, is known to many trademark practitioners from the early CJEU trademark judgment in GERRI vs. KERRY SPRING (C-100/02, Gerolsteiner Brunnen). It has just become the protagonist of another CJEU judgment: In a case heard before the Audiencia Provincial in…
Where the marks differ in only a single additional letter at the end of one of the marks, can the resulting similarity be “neutralized” by the conceptual differences? The German Federal Patent Court decided on 19 June 2017 that the opposing mark “Combit” and the attacked mark were overall dissimilar and that, even if there…
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…
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…
Time flies so fast… It seems like only yesterday I informed on this blog about the EU Commission’s report on EU customs enforcement of intellectual property rights for 2015. And last week another report from the Commission – for 2016 – was released. As in previous years, the report contains statistical information about the detentions…
That is the question recently raised at the Chancery Division of the High Court in England and Wales within the case of Sky Plc & Ors v SkyKick UK Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 1769 (Ch) (13 July 2017). The Claimants in this case provide a range of services, including pay television, home entertainment…
