In OHIM v Wrigley, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) remitted Wrigley's application to register the word mark DOUBLEMINT as a trade mark for chewing gum and other goods to the Court of First Instance (CFI), after ruling at paragraph 35 that the CFI had failed to consider whether the word "doublemint" was "capable of being used by other economic operators to designate a characteristic of their goods and services". The phrase "other economic operators" attracted the IPKat's attention since the ECJ has not told us which economic operators it means. Presumably it includes other chewing gum manufacturers, but who else is included in this august category -- and how do we know which economic operators to consider? Should we just look at undertakings that deal in identical goods? Similar goods? Complementary goods? All goods?
The usual prize will be sent to the first reader who can give us a good answer to this little puzzle.
What to do once you've chewed your gum here
More than you wanted ever to know about chewing gum here, here, here and here
Another chewing gum trade mark controversy here
The usual prize will be sent to the first reader who can give us a good answer to this little puzzle.
What to do once you've chewed your gum here
More than you wanted ever to know about chewing gum here, here, here and here
Another chewing gum trade mark controversy here
IPKAT RIDDLE: A STICKY PROBLEM
![<strong>IPKAT RIDDLE: A STICKY PROBLEM</strong>]()
Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo
on
Thursday, October 23, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html