tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6646029676306214295..comments2024-03-29T06:00:27.896+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Seeing very red....? CJEU decides in Oberbank colour trade mark disputeVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-46486933165855073182014-06-25T13:45:49.414+01:002014-06-25T13:45:49.414+01:00English translation now available - http://curia.e...English translation now available - http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130deb3ccbea3293e405799a78a7afce41590.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4OaNuRe0?text=&docid=153812&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=232578).<br /><br />What I consider to be the interesting question is number 3, on burden of proof. The question as referred is very specific (also apart from the dependence on the other questions), as the first sentence assumes that the question of distinctive character on filing can no longer be clarified. The Court's statements, however, appear to be much broader, relating to burden of proof in general. <br /><br />My concern relates to how this could be interpreted in relation to trademarks which have acquired distinctiveness through use, and which have been registered for several years when they become subjec to invalidity proceedings. Generally, it would be up to a claimant to prove its action; in the case of a trademark's validity however, it now appears as if the burden would be on owner of the trademark. Is that reasonable, especially considering the fact that a trademark can be registered indefinitely? <br /><br />In theory, a trademark proprietor could in the future be expected to prove the existence of acquired distinctiveness at a point in time which lies several hundred years in the past. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42223288922332301502014-06-19T23:15:01.422+01:002014-06-19T23:15:01.422+01:00"This Kat's quick and rough translation/s..."This Kat's quick and rough translation/summary (which she may revise if our readers scream that it is incorrect" - really ? Does this Kat not know if it is correct ? <br /><br />Tbh, it's all very difficult to follow as it is all "quick and rough" translations, especially point number 3.<br /><br />Hope the decision will be published in English.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com