The team is joined by: GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopoulou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy; by InternKats Ieva Giedrimaite, Rose Hughes, and Cecilia Sbrolli; and by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), and Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent).

Monday, 4 April 2005


The UK Patent Office has published a list of the first batch of references to the ECJ relating to IP made in 2005:

-References made in the two August Storck cases, regarding the registrability of Werthers toffee sweets and their wrapping. The IPKat says that this case is particularly interesting because in one of the cases the CFI applied the need to keep certain marks free for others to use to lack of distinctiveness, even though its more traditional domain is descriptiveness.
-Commission of the European Communities v the Kingdom of Spain – alleged failure of Spain to properly implement the public lending and retain rights
-Adam Opel AG v Autec AG – does a toy scale model of a real car infringe the real car-maker’s trade marks? Trade mark use rears its ugly head again in the referred questions…
-Siemens AG v VIPA gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozebautomatisierung mbH – interpretation of the Comparative Advertising Directive.

It’s yummy – but is it a trade mark?

The IPKat salutes the Patent Office for providing this incredibly valuable service. He has one tiny criticism though – it’d be nice to see the countries that have made the references recorded. The IPKat also advises his readers to read the information about how the Patent Office deals with ECJ references from other Member States/appeals from CFI decision.

Sweet shapes here
Why Werthers are better than sex (and other toffee trivia) here
Werthers for grown-ups here

No comments:

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':