tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8945864172643534122..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Colloseum and composite marks: a genuine ruling from the Court of JusticeVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30784011515292036082013-05-04T16:06:39.862+01:002013-05-04T16:06:39.862+01:00would the case be different if the only registered...would the case be different if the only registered TM would be TM No.6? <br /><br />In this scenario the use made by <br />means of the unregistered sign included in what now is called TM No3 would not be cosidered so as to be genuine use of TM No.6 as it differs from it in elemens that alter their disctintive character and is not registered at all ¿? <br /><br />I assume the conclussion would be different as the ruling explicitly refers to "registered" trademarks, right?<br /><br />cebohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10505173625195530852noreply@blogger.com