tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1046725827051249253..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Arnold J rules that shape of KitKat chocolate bar cannot be registered as a trade markVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91404303114733678662016-01-22T18:18:53.161+00:002016-01-22T18:18:53.161+00:00Thought the judgment was clear. No need for Arnold...Thought the judgment was clear. No need for Arnold to get personal. "estimer que" is not really a mistranslation of "rely upon" but the term"regard" is probably wrong in the English. I think "estimer" is being used in the highest sense of the word as in "to esteem" as in "rely upon"; "compter sur" might have been better but everyone knew what they were talking about at the end of the day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86808416239755599542016-01-22T17:51:58.562+00:002016-01-22T17:51:58.562+00:00The questions seemed perfectly clear. How would th...The questions seemed perfectly clear. How would the Supreme Court have phrased them more succinctly? So why not simply answer them?<br /><br />1. In order to establish that a trade mark has acquired a distinctive character following the use that had been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC , is it sufficient for the applicant for registration to prove that at the relevant date a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons recognise the mark and associate it with the applicant's goods in the sense that, if they were to be asked who marketed goods bearing that mark, they would identify the applicant; or must the applicant prove that a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons rely upon the mark (as opposed to any other trade marks which may also be present) as indicating the origin of the goods?<br /><br />2. Where a shape consists of three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result, is registration of that shape as a trade mark precluded by Article 3(1)(e)(i) and/or (ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC ?<br /><br />3. Should Article 3(1)(e)(ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC be interpreted as precluding registration of shapes which are necessary to obtain a technical result with regard to the manner in which the goods are manufactured as opposed to the manner in which the goods function?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87585478034836980142016-01-22T17:44:35.302+00:002016-01-22T17:44:35.302+00:00OMG you couldn't make this up. In a judgment o...OMG you couldn't make this up. In a judgment of all things and under the guise of analysing different language versions, Arnold is taking pot shots at Judge Johnny Foreigner, a Luxembourg national, for daring to step on his turf and reformulate questions. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-6828313195983404352016-01-22T17:17:45.339+00:002016-01-22T17:17:45.339+00:00Is Arnold in the Brexit camp? Haven't the loca...Is Arnold in the Brexit camp? Haven't the local judiciary had a talk or maybe "the talk" about behaving themselves in the run-up to the referendum? Does he want a Treaty re-negotiation on what languages judges speak and why? Can he put it to Cameron as part of the deal for February? Has he really just referred to the reporting judge as "X.. a Luxembourg national" ??? Does he want Christopher Vajda's (this one only gets animated when there is English being spoken) or Ian Forrester's job (this one is at least is an old competition hand in the EU but then so is Vajda)-the UK judges at the Court). Gone are the days when the UK had heavyweights at the CJEU who shaped things and maybe that would change things.But Brexit stands in the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48808360865547330612016-01-22T15:59:00.274+00:002016-01-22T15:59:00.274+00:00Why are English judges in England's IP lower ...Why are English judges in England's IP lower courts so up themselves when it comes to the CJEU. Their counterparts elsewhere in England are quite sane really when they refer matters. Very decent references are made on immigration, benefits, labour law, tax, VAT, insurance. Indeed, in those areas where knowledge of Union law per se is key as opposed to the niche area that is IP, the quality of the questions is high. <br /><br />Viewed from another perspective, the tedious practice of sending several permutations of the same question resulting in sometimes ten questions, some redundant and then they are often oddly ordered in term of logic of the legislation in question, the overly negotiated drafting of the questions with the parties' lawyers resulting in deadweight or circular questions (this last practice not really found elsewhere) should maybe be addressed before carping on about prerogatives. Thank goodness for the Supreme Court that cut through the chaff of the lower courts with the Meltwater reference and asked a succinct question to the point and got an equally succinct response. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-63236728674040678472016-01-21T09:41:48.885+00:002016-01-21T09:41:48.885+00:00Here you go: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup....Here you go: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2016/50.html&query=title+(+cadbury+)&method=booleanEleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84034300865200852402016-01-21T09:33:09.873+00:002016-01-21T09:33:09.873+00:00Can IPKat please provide any link to a copy of the...Can IPKat please provide any link to a copy of the judgement? :) Thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com