Serbs to keep to IP treaty commitments

The IPKat notes with admiration that the Republic of Serbia has been busily putting its international intellectual property commitments in order. Now that Serbia and Montenegro are going their separate ways, the Republic of Serbia has just affirmed its adherence, on its sole behalf, to the following:
* the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization;

* the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property;

* the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works;

* the Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods;

* the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks;

* the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Reg
istration of Marks;

* the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs;

* the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks;

* the Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs;

* the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration;

* the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol;

* the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and
Broadcasting Organisations;

* the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms;

* the Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite;

* the Trademark Law Treaty;

* the WIPO Copyright Treaty;

* the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty;

* the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganism
s for the Purposes of Patent Procedure;

* the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
Very nice, says Merpel - but can we expect a similar declaration from Montenegro too?

Famous Serbs here
Be careful what you eat in Serbia

CFI latest cases

Two more offerings from the Court of First Instance of the European Communities found their way on to the Curia website today:

* Case T-172/05 Armacell Enterprise GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, nmc SA. Armacell sought to register the word mark ARMAFOAM for foams in Class 20. nmc opposed, citing a likeliood of confusion with its earlier Community trade mark NOMAFOAM for products in various classes. The Opposition Division rejected the opposition; the Board of Appeal disagreed and allowed it. The CFI has now upheld the Board's decision. The decision discusses whether an applicant, in effectively changing the slant of his arguments as to whether the parties' respective goods are similar, has changed the whole context of the dispute: in this case, Armacell had not done done so and its arguments were admissible. However, Armacell had sought registration for a very broad category of products - "foam goods made from elastomerics, thermoplastics or thermosets as system component or as end use application". If a narrower, more specific list of products had been used, the risk of similarity of goods would have been reduced.

* Case T-302/03 PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG v OHIM. Alas, this decision is available in every official language except English and Slovak. Even the Maltese have got their own translation ...

The IPKat wonders whether some kind non-Slovak, non-English speaker - perhaps from Malta - might like to tell this blog's ample and growing readership what this decision is about. Merpel says, let's be sensible. Even without knowing any languages we can see that the applicant wanted to register the word sign map&guide as a Community trade mark for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42. The application failed. So did the appeal. The sign looks as though it fell foul of Council Regulation 40/94, Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) - lack of distinctive character and presence of descriptive quality - and was so unregistrable that the Board of Appeal didn't even have to give reasons for its decision ...


Guy said...

It is a pity that the selection of famous Serbs did not include my local neighbour, HRH Prince Tomislav Karađorđević, who for many tears grew apples in his vast orchards in Kirdford. After the demise of Tito he returned to his kingdom where he died in 2000. Sadly the Serbian leader did not allow him to regain the throne.

SMP said...

I would be glad to help but, hèlas, Portuguese was forgotten too. You'd better rephrase the call for help adding "non-Portuguese"...

Jeremy said...

But SMP, when I clicked through to the Curia site yesterday the Portuguese version was there. It was still there this morning (though I have to admit, it may look like Portuguese to an Englishman but not read like Portuguese to anyone versed in that lovely language).

SMP said...

Bizar: there was no link to the Portuguese version some hours ago, when I posted my comment, but there it is now. Well, you were right as to the contents of the decision.
PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG, a german company (Appellant), had fled an application for the wordmark "map&guide" for the following products and services:
software, in class 9; training courses in informatics, class 41; development of computer programs, class 42 [this translation may not be very accurate but well... you get the picture].
In October 19, 2001 the Examiner refused the application for classes 9 and 42, but, contrarily to what he first pondered, allowed it in class 41. The Examiner considered that the mark was descriptive of the products and services (7/1 b) of the Regulations)and lacked distintive caracther (7/1 c).
The Applicant appealed; in July 1, 2003, the Second Board of Appeal denied the appeal. It considered that the mark lacked distinctive caracther in the meaning of 7/1b). Also according to the Board of Appeal, there was no need to go over the absolute grounds for refusal set forward by the Examiner (7º/ 1 c).

The Appelant argues, among other things,that the mark in reference must be considered distinctive. According to her point of view, there is no direct connection between the sign "map&guide" and the products and services provided, namely software and development of computer programs, which were applied for in broad terms, and not specifically in connection with maps/travel guide software and its development.
Furthermore, she argues, if the trademark indeed lacked distinctive caracther, why would the Examiner allowed it for services in class 41?

The Court considered (to make a long story short) that, although the software and software-development services were applied for in general, they necessarily included maps/travel guides sofware ans the corresponding development services. He saw, therefore, a strong semantic connection between the trademark and the products and services applied for. Neither was the Boeard of Appeal convinced by the fact that the mark was allowed for class 41, since, it was argued, the distinctive carachter must be assesses specifically in connection with each product or service applied for.

Well, hope you can understand the big picture. Pardon my poor excuse for a translation.

:jana said...

As for Slovaks, they all (nearly) perfectly understand Czech language thanks to the former Czechoslovakia.

Jeremy said...

Thanks so much, SMP, for your help. I think we're all in your debt.

SMP said...

Actually, it is I who am in your debt. I have started to work in IP some months ago (I am attending a Masters in Intellectual law) and I shamelessly use your blog to keep me updated :). Great, fantasic work you have been doing.

Powered by Blogger.