tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8625362650736675923..comments2024-03-28T11:16:43.146+00:00Comments on The IPKat: From the European Court of Justice today: Part 1Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57195702215717128292007-06-12T18:18:00.000+01:002007-06-12T18:18:00.000+01:00I agree with the previous commentator that the CFI...I agree with the previous commentator that the CFI made a dog's breakfast of the comparison between the marks in Limoncello. But the ECJ decision is a disgrace for a different reason. This litigation has now progressed through FOUR instances of the European trade mark system and STILL there is no final decision. The trade mark application was filed on 20.10.99 -getting on for 8 years ago. This is delay on a scale similar to that of the EPO in its worst cases. The ECJ should have decided whether or not the application should be accepted once and for all rather than passing the buck back to CFI.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48650117859419436172007-06-12T12:13:00.000+01:002007-06-12T12:13:00.000+01:00Since when has the Kat felt the need to 'reserve t...Since when has the Kat felt the need to 'reserve the right to comment' ? Its our God given duty to comment.<BR/><BR/>Both decisions look fine to me. <BR/><BR/>In Limoncello, the ECJ had to give the CFI a thorough slap on the wrist for making a total dog's breakfast of 'global assessment'.<BR/><BR/>In Waterford, well, are wines and decanters really 'complementary' goods in trade. I think not m'lud.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com