ECTA European Communities Trade Mark Association
|
|
- Herbert Thomas
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ECTA European Communities Trade Mark Association Summary Report on the ERA seminar Significant Developments in Community Trade Marks and Designs Law, held in Alicante, November 2005 The Academy of European Law (Europäische Rechtsakademie, ERA) organized a seminar under the title Significant Developments in Community Trade Marks and Designs Law in Alicante (Spain) on November 2005, that was held at the seat of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). ECTA's First Vice-President was kindly invited to attend. ERA also offered a special registration fee for ECTA members. Welcome Words Mrs. Kerstin Sundström, Chairperson and Acting President of the Boards of Appeal, OHIM Mrs. Florence Hartmann-Vareilles, Course Director, ERA Mr. Jean-Philippe Rageade, Director of Programmes, ERA Part I: Opening Session The Interaction between International, National and EC Legal Orders Mr. José Ramón Ferrándiz Gabriel, Judge at the Supreme Court of Spain Mr. Ferrándiz explained the different steps taken to confer on trade mark owners the opportunity to protect their signs at an international level, without being compelled to register the trade marks on a country-by-country basis. Mr. Ferrándiz summarized the aims and the contents of the most important treaties concluded with the purpose to create a global protection system for trade marks, in particular the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Protection of Marks, the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Protection of Marks and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Mr. Ferrándiz also referred to the link between Community trade marks and international registrations, and to the contents of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1992/2003 of 27 October 2003, amending the Regulation on the Community Trade Mark to give effect to the accession of the European Community to the Madrid Protocol. In his speech, Mr. Ferrándiz detailed the problems originated by the coexistence of different systems of trade mark protection, and he especially referred to the direct applicability of the rules of the above-mentioned treaties in the contracting parties. The Relationship between Trade marks and other Intellectual Property Rights Dr. Annette Kur, Head of Nordic Countries Unit, Max Planck Institute
2 Dr. Kur explained that the European Community has managed to create a harmonized system for trade marks and designs, but there exist other intellectual property rights which, despite being regulated only at a national basis, usually create some overlaps and conflicts with trade marks and designs: trade names, non-registered marks, personal names, copyright, etc. Dr. Kur then focused on non-registered trade marks and, in particular, on trade names, and she summarized how these rights are protected throughout the European Union. Dr. Kur also examined several recent judgements dealing with conflicts between trade names and trade marks (COMPASS vs. COMPASS Ltd., ROBECO vs. ROBELCO, ANHEUSER BUSCH vs. BUDWEISER BUDVAR). Variable Marks: Forms and Shapes as Trade marks Prof. Karl-Heinz Fezer, University of Konstanz Firstly, Prof. Fezer summarized his theory of trade mark communication. He explained that trade marks are signs which serve to individualize and identify products on the market, and they act as a communication tool between business agents and consumers. In this respect, all commercial signs of communication must be admitted as trade marks, be they visual, aural, olfactory, gustatory or haptic. Afterwards, Prof. Fezer set out his theory of the variable trade mark, according to which trade marks are dynamic and not static and, therefore, the concept of trade mark must comprise non-conventional forms of marks, which are already present on the market. The speaker mentioned several decisions of the European Court of Justice accepting (or refusing) non-conventional forms of marks, such as Philips/Remington, Sieckmann, Libertel, Heidelberger Bauchemie or Shield Mark. The speaker s final thesis was that all forms of trade marks should be accepted, as long as they are able of being represented graphically. Thus, the infrastructure of the trade mark Registries should be technically adapted so as to accept innovative forms of marks. Part II: New Forms of Trade marks Graphical Aspects of New Forms of Marks Mr. Achim Bender, Member of the Second Board of Appeal, OHIM Mr. Bender summarized the formal requirements set forth in the Regulation on the Community Trade Mark with regard to three-dimensional trade marks, colour marks and sound marks. Mr. Bender underlined the two legal reasons that must justify the acceptance or the refusal of new forms of marks: the principle of registrability and the principle of legal certainty. The trade marks applied for must be able to be represented graphically in a self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible and durable way, so that the competent authorities and the economic operators know the precise subject of the protection afforded to the proprietor. Mr. Bender reviewed some decisions and judgements of the OHIM s Boards of Appeal and of the European Court of Justice (The smell of ripe raspberries, Linde, Sieckmann, Shield Mark, etc.), in order to explain which trade marks (and on the basis of which criteria) are being accepted for registration. The speaker pleaded for a broad an open definition of trade marks, which must bear in mind the necessities of the market and of the consumers. Finally, Mr. Bender affirmed that the legal requirement of graphic representability of the trade mark is not a substantial obstacle to the acceptance of new
3 forms of marks, but a technical frame that, nowadays, can be overcome to make available innovative forms of registration. Slogans as Trade Marks Mr. David Keeling, Member of the Second Board of Appeal, OHIM Mr. Keeling stated that slogans can function as trade marks, as long as they are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of its competitors (e.g., Nike s Just Do It! ). Nevertheless, slogans are not ordinary word marks, since they are normally used as secondary marks, in connection with other trade marks. Although the case-law of the European Court of Justice seems to indicate that all trade marks are subject to the same criteria of registrability and distinctiveness, trade marks are different, as is the attitude of consumers towards them (word marks, sound marks, colour marks, etc.). Mr. Keeling stated that the marketing experts do not regard slogans as conventional trade marks and cited the following interesting sentence of David A. Aaker (from his book Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, 1996, at p. 58): "A slogan can capture the essence of a brand and become an important part of the brand equity, If a brand is "packaged meaning", a slogan can be the ribbon that ties the package together and provides an extra touch." Mr. Keeling commented several judgements rendered by the European Court of Justice (DAS PRINZIP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT, HAVE A BREAK, ) and by the Court of First Instance (MEHR FÜR IHR GELD, BEST BUY, ) in connection with slogans, and he mentioned some slogans that have been accepted or refused by the OHIM s Boards of Appeal. The speaker defended an approach towards slogans based on four issues: i) How descriptive is the slogan?; ii) Is the slogan presented in an unusual language?; iii) What would be the effects of registration for other traders? Would it limit the competitors freedom to promote their own goods?; and iv) The principle of equal treatment (non discrimination) must be taken into account in decisions concerning the acceptance or the refusal of slogans. Part III: National Perspectives Several Components of a Trade Mark and Risk of Confusion: A German Experience Prof. Franz Hacker, Presiding Judge, Federal Patent Court, Munich Prof. Hacker explained the approach of the Federal Patent Court in order to evaluate the risk of confusion between marks that coincide only in some of their components. He summarized the case-law of the Federal Patent Court from the case LUCKY WHIP vs. SCHÖLLER-NUCKI (which were considered to be similar in 1973) until nowadays. In the first judgements, the Federal Patent Court concluded that when a complex trade mark contained the prior sign there existed a risk of confusion, since the new mark evoked the earlier one. In 1986, the Court changed its approach and focused the comparison on the dominant element of the composite trade mark, taking into account the distinctive character of such element. If none of the elements of the complex mark is dominant, the overall impression of the compared signs will differ and, thus, they will be able to coexist (e.g. ALKA-SELTZER vs. TOGAL-SELTZER, SALI TOFT vs. SALMI, ECCO vs. EKKO BLEIFREI). The dominance theory was not applied when the earlier trade mark enjoyed a reputation (e.g., CITY PLUS vs. D2 BEST CITY PLUS, ELLA MAY vs. MEY, PUBLIC vs. PUBLIC NATION).
4 Lastly, Prof. Hacker mentioned the judgement of the European Court of Justice of (LIFE vs. THOMSON LIFE), which established that where the goods or services are identical there may be a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public where the contested sign is composed by juxtaposing the company name of another party and a registered mark which has normal distinctiveness and which, without alone determining the overall impression conveyed by the composite sign, still has an independent distinctive role therein. The Role Conferred to the National Judge by Directive 2004/48/EC Mr. Marcus Norrgård, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration Mr. Norrgård detailed the role conferred on the national judge by Directive 2004/48/EC ( the Enforcement Directive ). The speaker affirmed that, depending on the Directive s interpretation, its enforcement could be either too aggressive or too lax. Traditionally, the enforcement of intellectual property law has been a national issue. This changed with the TRIPS Agreement, which contains detailed provisions on enforcement procedures, sanctions and measures. The roots of the Enforcement Directive are to be found in the approach of the TRIPS Agreement. The Directive tends to approximate legislative systems in order to ensure a high, equivalent and homogeneous level of protection in the internal market. It covers copyright and industrial property and provides evidence-protecting measures, claims for right of information, provisional measures, corrective measures, final injunctions and damages. The Directive still allows a wide margin of discretion to national courts, since it gives room to different enforcement ideologies. The speaker defended a balanced interpretation of the measures set forth in the Directive, which must be fair, equitable and not unnecessarily complicated or costly. In order to achieve the required balance, Mr. Norrgård affirmed that the Directive must be interpreted in the light of fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, protection of personal data, etc. Finally, the national judge should apply the measures, procedures and remedies of the Directive taking into consideration the specific characteristics of each case and the different type of infringers. If necessary, he should turn to the comparative legal study in order to fully understand the provisions of the Directive. Grounds of Refusal Based on Public Policy or Accepted Principles of Morality: A Perspective from the UK Mr. Geoffrey Hobbs, QC, Essex Court, London Mr. Hobbs focused on trade marks that are considered to be morally offensive. According to Article 6 quinquies, para. B3 of the Paris Convention and to Article 7(1)(f) of the Regulation on the Community Trade Mark, marks contrary to public policy and morality shall not be registered. However, there are no general rules that may help examiners and courts to decide whether a particular sign is contrary to the accepted principles of morality. A systematic approach is needed in order to avoid arbitrary and subjective decisions. The speaker considered that the standard must be the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 10 ECHR protects the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to freedom of commercial expression. This right must be secured without discrimination (Article 14 ECHR). Therefore, in case of doubt, a trade mark must be accepted for registration. Only anti-social brands should be refused registration. Mr. Hobbs listed some trade marks that have been refused in the USA, UK, Australia and by the OHIM on moral grounds. He also commented that several marks consisting
5 of names of famous persons have been refused registration by the OHIM on the basis of Article 7(1)(f) CTMR (e.g., BILL CLINTON, FIDEL CASTRO). Finally, the speaker stated that, although the goods or services claimed by a particular mark may be of relevance, some trade marks are intrinsically offensive and cannot be redeemed irrespective of the goods or services to which they are to be applied. Part IV: Community Case Law The Invalidity Division of the OHIM 4 Years Experience Dr. Martin Schlötelburg, Designs Department, OHIM Dr. Schlötelburg explained the OHIM s experience with Community designs and, in particular, with invalidity proceedings against registered designs. He stated that the OHIM s Invalidity Division has received 165 applications for a declaration of invalidity of a registered design and has already taken 40 decisions. Dr. Schlötelburg presented some statistics concerning the language of the invalidity proceedings and the nationality of the applicant, and detailed the grounds of invalidity that have been raised before the Invalidity Division. Most of the applications for a declaration of invalidity are grounded on Article 25(1)(c) of the Regulation on Community Designs (CDR), i.e., lack of novelty or individual character. Surprisingly, the OHIM has not yet received any application based on Article 25(1)(a) CDR (i.e., what has been registered does not correspond to the definition of design). Dr. Schlötelburg stated that 42% of the applications have been rejected, whereas 58% have been upheld (and, therefore, the challenged designs have been invalidated). Four decisions of the Invalidity Division have been appealed, but there is no decision yet from the Boards of Appeal. The speaker also affirmed that invalidity proceedings usually last around one year, and that the decision is taken by the same person or department that handled the design application. Finally, Dr. Schlötelburg commented several recent decisions taken by the OHIM s Invalidity Division, which have clarified some of the concepts of the CDR, such as informed user, overall impression or degree of freedom of the designer, as well as the circumstances in which the design is considered to have been made available to the public ( disclosure ). The Experience of the European Court of Justice Mr. Antonio Pérez van Kappel, Legal Secretary, European Court of Justice In the last speech, Mr. Pérez van Kappel summarized the case-law of the European Court of Justice in the intellectual property field. He explained that the European Court of Justice acts as a Supreme Court and must help to harmonize the interpretation and the application of the EU legislation, mainly though preliminary rulings. Mr. Pérez van Kappel stated that the first judgements of the European Court of Justice established the main principles of trade mark law: which is the essential function of a trade mark, who are the relevant consumers, how trade marks must be compared in order to decide whether there exists a risk of confusion, etc. The speaker then referred to the appeal before the European Court of Justice against a judgement rendered by the Court of First Instance. According to Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal to the Court of Justice shall be limited to points of law. Therefore, the European Court of Justice should not be asked to assess the facts of the case again, since they have already been evaluated by the Court of
6 First Instance. Nevertheless, there are many appeals in which the European Court of Justice is asked to decide on the facts. This situation is partly due to the fact that the European Court of Justice has decided to evaluate the merits of the case in several decisions (e.g., BABY-DRY), instead of returning the proceedings to the Court of First Instance (as it was correctly done in COMPANYLINE or DOUBLEMINT). The fact that the European Court of Justice keeps deciding on the merits of the case (e.g., SAT-2, BIO-IT) encourages the filing of appeals against the judgements of the Court of First Instance. The speaker defended that the European Court of Justice should focus on essential issues, instead of deciding on whether a particular sign is distinctive. Finally, Mr. Pérez van Kappel pleaded for the creation of a European Court of Trade Marks and Designs, whose decisions should only be subject to appeal before the Court of First Instance. Reported by Mireia Curell and Xavier Fàbrega, Curell Suňoll, ES
Intellectual Property Law in the Information Society
Intellectual Property Law in the Information Society Copyright and Related Rights Jarle Roar Sæbø 2 3 Adwords Various kinds of use? HP buying HP as an adword to generate traffic to HP s sites Competitor
More informationEuropean Union. Contributing firms Bureau Casalonga & Josse Casalonga Avocats
European Union Contributing firms Bureau Casalonga & Josse Casalonga Avocats Authors Cristina Bercial-Chaumier Head of Alicante Office, Bureau Casalonga & Josse Karina Dimidjian-Lecomte Associate, Casalonga
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF. English
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT - Designs Service DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 17/06/2013 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 25 January 2007 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 25 January 2007 * In Case C-321/03, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (United
More informationEuropean Union. Contributing firm Howrey LLP
European Union Contributing firm Howrey LLP Authors David Stone Partner Laura Alonso Domingo Partner Marc Groebl Partner Denis Monégier du Sorbier Partner 63 European Union Howrey LLP 1. Legal framework
More informationDesigns. Germany Henning Hartwig BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbb. A Global Guide
Designs 2015 Henning Hartwig A Global Guide ... IP only. BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. Selected teams of legally and technically qualified professionals
More informationDesign Protection in Europe
Design Protection in Europe www.bardehle.com 2 Content 5 1. Requirements for design protection in Europe 5 2. Overlap of design law and other IP rights 6 3. Design law in Germany and international design
More informationEuropean Union. Contributing firm Bureau Casalonga & Josse Casalonga Avocats
European Union Contributing firm Bureau Casalonga & Josse Casalonga Avocats Authors Cristina Bercial-Chaumier Head of Alicante office, Bureau Casalonga & Josse Karina Dimidjian-Lecomte Associate, Casalonga
More informationCourt Case Review (Trademarks) Budweiser Case
Court Case Review (Trademarks) Budweiser Case Emi Aoshima(Ms.); Patent Attorney of the Trademark & Design Division The Tokyo High Court rendered a judgement on July 30, 2003 in the so-called Budweiser
More informationPage 1 of 9 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 24 November 2005 (*) (Community
More informationThe German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR)
The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) The Secretary General German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 11. RheinAtrium.
More informationContributing firm. Author Henning Hartwig
Germany Contributing firm Author Henning Hartwig Legal framework Design law in Germany consists of the Designs Act, harmonised to a substantial degree with the EU Designs Directive (98/71/EC) and the EU
More informationEuropean Design and Trademark Law. Formation
European Design and Trademark Law Formation Ulf Maunsbach Associate Professor, LLD. Faculty of Law University of Lund ulf.maunsbach@jur.lu.se http://works.bepress.com/ulf_maunsbach European (full)harmonisation
More informationPosition Paper regarding Case C-12/12 Colloseum Holding AG v. Levi Strauss & Co. ( Stofffähnchen )
Position Paper regarding Case C-12/12 Colloseum Holding AG v. Levi Strauss & Co. ( Stofffähnchen ) About AIPPI The Association Internationale Pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle ( AIPPI )
More informationThe Community Trade Mark and the National Trade Marks Are they in harmony? The Benelux point of view.
Round Table ECTA-BOIP-OHIM The Community Trade Mark and the National Trade Marks Are they in harmony? The Benelux point of view. Are the CTM and Benelux systems harmonized? Relative grounds of refusal
More informationMax Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law Munich - Germany
Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law Munich - Germany Study on the Overall Functioning of the Trade Mark System in Europe Hearing on 8 June 2010-10:30-17:30 The meeting
More informationAre the CTM and the Benelux systems Harmonized?
Round Table in The Netherlands Are the CTM and the Benelux systems Harmonized? From a legal point of view: absolute grounds of refusal in examination and cancellation proceedings - The differences by Sophie
More informationECTA European Communities Trade Mark Association 27 th Annual Meeting in Killarney
ECTA European Communities Trade Mark Association 27 th Annual Meeting in Killarney Opposition and Cancellation Proceedings Similarities and Differences Vincent O Reilly, Director Department for Industrial
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF. English
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 14/05/2014 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationAIPLA Overview of recent developments in Community trade mark law
AIPLA Overview of recent developments in Community trade mark law Marie-Aimée de Dampierre, Partner 2 May 2013 IPMT / Paris Overview Trade mark registration general principles Earlier rights Distinctiveness
More informationTrademark Protection in Europe
Trademark Protection in Europe www.bardehle.com Content 5 1. Requirements for trademark protection in Europe 6 2. Overlap of trademark law and other IP rights 7 3. Trademark law in Germany and international
More informationAnd...Action! Producers need their IP Experts before every take
ECTA 26th Annual Meeting - DEAUVILLE France, 20-23 June 2007 And...Action! Producers need their IP Experts before every take TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Office Practice 1 1.Enforcement OECD Report 2 Case Law 2
More informationGuidelines Concerning Proceedings before the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Part B, Examination
Guidelines Concerning Proceedings before the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Part B, Examination Draft, DIPP Status: July 2006 Page 1 INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2.
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS)
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 10/07/14 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF. English
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 14/05/2014 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 23/04/2014.
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 23/04/2014 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationUNIFIED PATENT SYSTEM: A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN EUROPE
March 2013 UNIFIED PATENT SYSTEM: A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN EUROPE After four decades of negotiations, on 19 February 2013 24 EU states signed the agreement on a Unified Patent Court
More informationti Litigating Patents Overseas: Country Specific Considerations Germany There is no "European" litigation system.
Wolfgang Festl-Wietek of Viering Jentschura & Partner Speaker 11: 1 LSI Law Seminars International ti Litigating Patents Overseas: Country Specific Considerations Germany by Wolfgang Festl-Wietek Viering,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 24 June 2004 *
JUDGMENT OF 24. 6. 2004 CASE C-49/02 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 24 June 2004 * In Case C-49/02, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
More informationEU-CHINA INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON TRADEMARK LAW. João Miranda de Sousa Head of IP
EU-CHINA INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON TRADEMARK LAW Head of IP Beijing, 27-28 October 2010 EU-CHINA INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON TRADEMARK LAW ACQUISITION OF TRADEMARK RIGHTS 1. Whether trademark rights are acquired
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union
8.8.2017 L 205/39 COMMISSION IMPLEMTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/1431 of 18 May 2017 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the European Union
More informationhaving regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2013)0161),
P7_TA-PROV(2014)0118 Community trade mark ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 February 2014 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 23/04/2014.
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 23/04/2014 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationIMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice.
Page 1 of 8 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 31 March 2004 (1) (Community
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 30 June 2004 (1)
Page 1 of 12 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 30 June 2004 (1) (Community
More informationThe most important Community judgment so far is the Libertel Case, decided 6 May last. 1
Absolute grounds for refusal Colour marks Arjen W.H. Meij * Introduction I have been invited to say a few words about the way in which the Community courts have to date applied Community trade mark law
More informationORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 5 February 2004 *
STREAMSERVE v OHIM ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 5 February 2004 * In Case C-150/02 P, Streamserve Inc., represented by J. Kääriäinen, advokat, with an address for service in Luxembourg, appellant,
More informationPART C OPPOSITION SECTION 2 DOUBLE IDENTITY AND LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
GUIDELINES FOR EXAMINATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) ON COMMUNITYEUROPEAN UNION TRADE MARKS PART C OPPOSITION
More informationEU Trade Mark Reform. Consequences in Latvia
EU Trade Mark Reform. Consequences in Latvia Jānis Ancītis Counsellor, Department of Trademarks and Industrial Designs ECTA workshop Implementation of Trade Mark Directive, 8 December 2016, Riga STRUCTURE
More informationECTA European Communities Trade Mark Association
ECTA European Communities Trade Mark Association Summary Report on the Workshop on the Changes in the Implementing Regulations and CTM Renewals held in Alicante on October 4, 2005 ECTA attended the above
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF. English
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 12/11/2013 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationCOMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) /... of
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 5.3.2018 C(2018) 1231 final COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) /... of 5.3.2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on
More informationSeptember Community Trademark: Recent Decisions
NEWSLETTER September 2000 Concerning Us News From Alicante CTM Update Community Trademark: Recent Decisions 80469 München 01309 Dresden Corneliusstr. 15 London SW1V 1QL Loschwitzer Str. 28 Tel: +49 89
More informationAlicante, 5-6 MAY 2016
Alicante, 5-6 MAY 2016 1st day 08:30-09:25 Registration and breakfast 09:25-09:30 Introduction by Conference Moderator Mark Jefferiss, UK Intellectual Property Office 09:30-10:15 Opening by António Campinos,
More informationJudicial training in the framework of the Unified Patent Court as a prerequisite for the success of the Unitary Patent System
ERA Forum (2015) 16:1 6 DOI 10.1007/s12027-015-0378-z EDITORIAL Judicial training in the framework of the Unified Patent Court as a prerequisite for the success of the Unitary Patent System Florence Hartmann-Vareilles
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS)
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 10/07/2014 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 20/03/2013.
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 20/03/2013 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF. English
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 18/09/2014 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationMadrid Easy. A rough and easy guide how international registrations designating the European Community will be processed by the OHIM
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) Trade Marks Department IP Matters Alicante, 14 September 2004 DS/ab -TMD/04 Madrid Easy Or: A rough and easy guide how international
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT - DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 12/04/2013 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF. English
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 08/08/2014 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationInfoCuria Domstolens praksis
InfoCuria Domstolens praksis dansk (da) Startside > Søgning > søgeresultater > Dokumenter Udskriv Dokumentets sprog : engelsk JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber) 6 March 2014 (*) (Appeal Community
More informationPage 1 of 7 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 13 September 2006 (*) (Community
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 14/06/04. English
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DESIGNS DEPARTMENT- INVALIDITY DIVISION DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 14/06/04 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 14/06/04. English
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DESIGNS DEPARTMENT- INVALIDITY DIVISION DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 14/06/04 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationRecent Developments of the Bulgarian Trademark Legislation and Practice
Recent Developments of the Bulgarian Trademark Legislation and Practice by Jivko Draganov 1 Introduction The importance of the designations of origin in commercial activities has been out of question for
More informationFordham IP Conference 4-5 April 2013 Remedies session Laëtitia Bénard Cross-border injunctions for registered IP rights in Europe
Fordham IP Conference 4-5 April 2013 Remedies session Laëtitia Bénard Cross-border injunctions for registered IP rights in Europe 1 I. General rule for all IP rights: Brussels Regulation No 44/2001 A right
More informationThe Community Design System The Latest Developments in Examination and Invalidity Procedure. By Eva Vyoralová
The Community Design System The Latest Developments in Examination and Invalidity Procedure By Eva Vyoralová 1. Introduction The aim of this article, based on the presentation given at the ECTA Round Table
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 26/07/07. English
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DESIGNS DEPARTMENT INVALIDITY DIVISION DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 26/07/07 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationTRADE MARKS ACT (CHAPTER 332)
TRADE MARKS ACT (CHAPTER 332) History Act 46 of 1998 -> 1999 REVISED EDITION -> 2005 REVISED EDITION An Act to establish a new law for trade marks, to enable Singapore to give effect to certain international
More informationSearch by keywords. Below is a full list of keywords and explanations. Keyword. Explanations
Search by keywords Many cases or documents in esearch Case Law are tagged with one or more pre-defined keywords categorising their content. This allows the user to identify relevant cases through a combination
More informationUnitary Patent in Europe & Unified Patent Court (UPC)
Unitary Patent in Europe & Unified Patent Court (UPC) An overview and a comparison to the classical patent system in Europe 1 Today s situation: Obtaining patent protection in Europe Direct filing and
More informationAdopted text. - Trade mark regulation
Adopted text - Trade mark regulation The following document is an unofficial summary of the text adopted by the legal affairs committee (JURI) of the European Parliament from 17 December 2013. The text
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 6 October 2004 *
NEW LOOK v OHIM NAULOVER (NLSPORT, NLJEANS, NLACTIVE AND NLCOLLECTION) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 6 October 2004 * In Joined Cases T-117/03 to T-119/03 and T-171/03, New Look
More informationIntroduction of the Madrid Protocol
Introduction of the Madrid Protocol Japan Patent Office Asia - Pacific Industrial Property Center, Japan Institute for Promoting Invention and Innovation 2016 Collaborator: Junko Saito Patent Attorney
More informationThe Ministry of Justice March 5, 2013 Stockholm
1 The Ministry of Justice March 5, 2013 Stockholm TRADE MARKS ACT (Swedish Statute Book, SFS, 2010:1877) Unofficial translation CHAPTER 1. General Provisions Scope of Application Trade marks and other
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 23 October 2002 *
MATRATZEN CONCORD v OHIM HUKLA GERMANY (MATRATZEN) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 23 October 2002 * In Case T-6/01, Matratzen Concord GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, established
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF. English
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 05/11/2013 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationCollective Trademarks : application and validity in the EU. Annick Mottet Haugaard ECTA President ASIPI - 31 October 2011
Collective Trademarks : application and validity in the EU Annick Mottet Haugaard ECTA President ASIPI - 31 October 2011 Collective trademarks A. Regulation B. Definition C. Function D. Applicant / Future
More informationThis document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
1995R2868 EN 23.03.2016 005.002 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents B COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS)
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 02/06/2014 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationARE IP COURTS IN EUROPE REALLY UNIFIED? Ian Hiscock (Novartis) Rob Jacob (Stephenson Harwood LLP)
ARE IP COURTS IN EUROPE REALLY UNIFIED? Ian Hiscock (Novartis) Rob Jacob (Stephenson Harwood LLP) Rt Hon Professor Sir Robin Jacob Cambridge educated One of the UK s most influential IP judges of all time
More informationLaw on Trademarks and Geographical Indications
Disclaimer: The English language text below is provided by the Translation and Terminology Centre for information only; it confers no rights and imposes no obligations separate from those conferred or
More informationTrade Marks Act, 1996 (Community Trade Mark) Regulations (S.I. No. 229 of 2000) The Irish Patent Office
Title Source Trade Marks Act, 1996 (Community Trade Mark) Regulations (S.I. No. 229 of 2000) The Irish Patent Office S.I. No. 229 of 2000. Trade Marks Act, 1996 (Community Trade Mark) Regulations, 2000
More informationThe answers of the Committee Members are enclosed. Date: October 26, Monika Wenz
1 Summary report on the result of the survey conducted by the Harmonization Committee in the Community member countries on the question whether use of a TM in a form slightly deviating from the registered
More informationSPECIAL FOCUS ON DORMANT TRADE MARKS. Ruta Olmane Attorneys at Law BORENIUS, LV
SPECIAL FOCUS ON DORMANT TRADE MARKS Ruta Olmane Attorneys at Law BORENIUS, LV In contrast to American law, it is a fundamental trait of European trade mark law that trade marks can be registered without
More informationVADEMECUM TO THE COMMUNITY TRADE MARKS BULLETIN
VADEMECUM TO THE COMMUNITY TRADE MARKS BULLETIN V. 3 (15.09.2005) VADEMECUM Introduction Part A Part B Part C Part D Part E Part F Part M - CTM applications - CTM registrations - Later entries in the CTM
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 12 February 2004 *
CAMPINA MELKUNIE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 12 February 2004 * In Case C-265/00, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Benelux-Gerechtshof for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
More informationPage 1 of 7 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 4 May 2005 (*) (Community trade
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 21/01/2013.
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 21/01/2013 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 21/02/2014.
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 21/02/2014 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF. English
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 19/06/2014 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationTRADE MARKS ACT 1996 (as amended)
Amended by: Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (28/2000) Patents (Amendments) Act 2006 (31/2006) TRADE MARKS ACT 1996 (as amended) S.I. No. 622 of 2007 European Communities (Provision of services concerning
More informationIMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice.
IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 15 January 2003 (1) (Community trade mark
More informationREPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW AMENDING THE LAW ON TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS. No of
Draft REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW AMENDING THE LAW ON TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS No of.. 1999 Vilnius Article 1. Revised version of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Trademarks and service marks To amend
More informationQuestionnaire. On the patent system in Europe
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Internal Market and Services DG Knowledge-based Economy Industrial property Brussels, 09/01/06 Questionnaire On the patent system in Europe 1Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento
More informationUK (England and Wales)
Intellectual Property 2007/08 UK (England and Wales) UK (England and Wales) Ian Kirby and Rochelle Pizer, Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP www.practicallaw.com/2-234-5952 Registering a trade mark 1. What marks
More informationECTA European Communities Trade Mark Association
ECTA European Communities Trade Mark Association Antwerp, 8 May, 2007 Considerations on the possible repeal of Article 9sexies of the Madrid Protocol ECTA - The European Communities Trade Mark Association
More informationPrinciples for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property
Principles for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property Prepared by the European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property Second Preliminary Draft June 6, 2009 About the draft and
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 04/10/2012
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 04/10/2012 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 19/02/2013.
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 19/02/2013 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 13 July 2005 *
JUDGMENT OF 13. 7. 2005 CASE T-40/03 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 13 July 2005 * In Case T-40/03, Julian Murúa Entrena, residing in Elciego (Spain), represented by I. Temiño
More informationSupported by. A global guide for practitioners
Supported by Yearbook 2009/2010 A global guide for practitioners France Contributing firm Granrut Avocats Authors Richard Milchior Partner Estelle Benattar Associate 95 France Granrut Avocats 1. Legal
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION OF. English
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 29/09/2014 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationP7 Principles of Trade Mark Law Mark Scheme Half marks may be awarded where candidates answers do not merit a full mark.
P7 Principles of Trade Mark Law Mark Scheme 2014 Part A Half marks may be awarded where candidates answers do not merit a full mark. Question 1 a) What must Community trade marks be capable of in order
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS)
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 26/05/2014 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF
More informationPROPOSALS FOR CREATING UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
PROPOSALS FOR CREATING UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION The idea of a Community Patent, a single patent that can be enforced throughout the European Union (EU), is hardly new. The original
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 29 April 2004 * Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by C. Osterrieth, Rechtsanwalt,
HENKEL v OHIM JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 29 April 2004 * In Joined Cases C-456/01 P and C-457/01 P, Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by C. Osterrieth, Rechtsanwalt,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 15 January 2003 *
JUDGMENT OF 15. 1. 2003 CASE T-99/01 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 15 January 2003 * In Case T-99/01, Mystery drinks GmbH, in judicial liquidation, established in Eppertshausen
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union. (Legislative acts) REGULATIONS
16.6.2017 L 154/1 I (Legislative acts) REGULATIONS REGULATION (EU) 2017/1001 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (codification) (Text with EEA relevance)
More information