CONFECTIONERY APPEALS REACH A STICKY END


Confectionery appeals reach a sticky end

The IPKat is not surprised that, in Cases C-24/05 P and C-25/-05 P August Storck KG v OHIM, the European Court of Justice dismissed the appeals of August Storck KG against the Court of First Instance's dismissal of its appeals against the Board of Appeal's dismissal of its appeal against the examiner's thoroughly correct decision to refuse registration of its three-dimensional marks (depicted here) as Community trade marks.

The Kat is horrified to see how much time and effort has been expended in demonstrating, in terms of sound legal logic, that these totally unmeritorious non-marks are unregistrable. These rulings are 78 and 89 paragraphs long, respectively. Contrast this with the really important cases: Adidas v Fitnessworld was only 42 paragraphs long, Sabel v Puma 27 and even Windsurfing-Chiemsee (remember how endlessly long it was at the time it came out) was just 55 paragraphs.

Never mind, says Merpel: the applicant's product is quite delicious and is recognised by the public under quite a popular trade mark, the word mark WERTHERS.

More on August Storck here
Werthers Original here
CONFECTIONERY APPEALS REACH A STICKY END CONFECTIONERY APPEALS REACH A STICKY END Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, June 22, 2006 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.