Still able and willing
The IPKat recently posted, and is now re-posting, this notice concerning a friend of his who is currently seeking experience in England, working either with a private practice law firm or in-house as an intellectual property lawyer. Qualified as a solicitor in England and Wales and also as a lawyer in India, he holds First Class degrees both in Electronics and in Law and has specialised in intellectual property at both Masters and Doctoral levels.
Enthusiastic and willing to work, he is willing to provide a CV for any interested party. For further details, email the IPKat at email@example.com.
Ruth Annand, in her capacity as Appointed Person, has given her non-appealable ruling on the UK dispute between dress designer Elizabeth Emmanuel and the company that (i) owned a word and device mark (left) consisting of her name and (ii) applied to register a further word mark consisting of her name. At an earlier stage of the dispute a reference was made to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling (noted here by the IPKat). What the ECJ said was that
"1. A trade mark corresponding to the name of the designer and first manufacturer of the goods bearing that mark may not, by reason of that particular feature alone, be refused registration on the ground that it would deceive the public ... where the goodwill associated with that trade mark, previously registered in a different graphic form, has been assigned together with the business making the goods to which the mark relates.Professor Annand has now buried any hope that Elizabeth Emanuel might have had, by dismissing her appeals both on the application for revocation and for the opposition. The fact that members of the public falsely believed that Ms Emanuel was still involved with the design of products bearing her name was not of itself sufficient to assist her, since the public's error was not induced by the conduct of her adversary.
2. A trade mark corresponding to the name of the designer and first manufacturer of the goods bearing that mark is not, by reason of that particular feature alone, liable to revocation on the ground that that mark would mislead the public ... in particular where the goodwill associated with that mark has been assigned together with the business making the goods to which the mark relates".
Right: the IPKat has always gone for the "own brand" look
The IPKat notes that the concept of legitimate consumer error is affirmed elsewhere in ECJ jurisprudence, in the Gerolsteiner decision. Merpel says this decision must be right: you frequently get consumers who don't know that a business has changed hands and that, for example, what they assume to be home-made products are now churned out by industrial conglomerates. If Ms Emanuel's submissions were to be accepted, where would one ever be able to draw the line?