tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1962706456407202074..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Today's trade mark rulings from the Court of First InstanceVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7262924399169868712007-09-13T13:52:00.000+01:002007-09-13T13:52:00.000+01:00What's with these music references ? Most readers ...What's with these music references ? Most readers of this site reckon Procol Harem is cutting edge.<BR/><BR/>Simon and Tufty may argue about which album cover most resembles this, er, mark - but is anyone out there seriously arguing that it's a registrable mark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74430655064911417192007-09-13T13:19:00.000+01:002007-09-13T13:19:00.000+01:00It looks more like the Soulwax album cover to me.It looks more like the Soulwax album cover to me.Tufty the Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03827201949616642689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81941163424741279732007-09-12T17:13:00.000+01:002007-09-12T17:13:00.000+01:00Anyone with an interest in decent music will tell ...Anyone with an interest in decent music will tell you that the Glaverbel textured surface looks remarkably like the album cover from Unknown Pleasures by Joy Division.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22740850908153784842007-09-12T16:36:00.000+01:002007-09-12T16:36:00.000+01:00Busy day today - there are also judgements in resp...Busy day today - there are also judgements in respect of T 304/05, T 358/04 and T 363/04. It does look as though some appeals are filed without any real consideration of the chances of success.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42718366427040884882007-09-12T15:09:00.000+01:002007-09-12T15:09:00.000+01:00Dear IPKat, despite being French, or because I am,...Dear IPKat, despite being French, or because I am, I really enjoy English humour. I also enjoy reading your work. In response to your witticism on Case T-140/06 Philip Morris : i) Times are hard nowadays for smokers in France, just try to smoke in a restaurant in Paris and you'll see. ii) the reason why the decision is in French is probably simpler : the applicant is a company incorporated in Switzerland (in a French spoken part) who most probably has filed its trademark application in French, one of the 5 OAMI official language. Therefore the language of the proceedings has to be French.<BR/>You'll find the same before the EPO, which has only 3 official languages (English, German, French), the language of the proceeding being the official language in which the patent application has been filed or translated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45364082690927089312007-09-12T14:23:00.000+01:002007-09-12T14:23:00.000+01:00I'd love to see the evidence of acquired distincti...I'd love to see the evidence of acquired distinctiveness in relation to this 'sign'. Assessing such evidence is one of the hardest tasks any registry can perform - especially when we are talking about an unconventional sign such as this. <BR/><BR/>I'm sure with such a sign you could get quite a number of 'professionals' willing to stand up and say, "yes that's distinctive" - but is it distinctive in a TM sense, and is it distinctive to the end user ??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-83544745656841477922007-09-12T13:03:00.000+01:002007-09-12T13:03:00.000+01:00The Glaverbel decision raises some questions in my...The Glaverbel decision raises some questions in my mind. I understand that the applicant provided evidence that the patterning was considered distinctive by professionals in ten of the (then) fifteen EU states but because evidence was not presented for all states, the Court decided against acquired distinctiveness. While this position would appear to be contrary to the statement in para. 37, i.e. "In the case of non-word marks it may be assumed that the assessment of their distinctiveness will be the same throughout the Community, unless there is concrete evidence to the contrary (Case T‑399/02 Eurocermex v OHIM (shape of a beer bottle) [2004] ECR II‑1391, paragraph 47, and shape of a sweet wrapper, cited in paragraph 32 above, paragraph 86)", how does this position tie in with EU expansion? An EU mark may have "acquired distinctiveness" in all old states but not the new states but on EU expansion, I presume the protection of the mark automatically extends to the new states where there is no acquired distincitveness. Why should an applicant not be entitled to the registration if the mark is distinctive in ten out of fifteen states, including all the larger ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com