Issue 10 (October 2003) of the subscription-based European Trade Mark Reports has now been published. Among the cases made available in English translation are
• System 3R International v Erowa, where the Stockholm District Court ruled that a company’s use of another’s trade mark for allegedly “descriptive” purposes was not honest commercial use where the “description” was as part of its own trade mark;
• The Polish Administrative Court’s “Bottle” case, where it held that the invalidation of a design registration had no impact on the validity of the registration of that design as a trade mark;
Other cases reported in this issue include the English Court of Appeal decision in Arsenal v Reed , the ECJ’s ruling in Van Doren on the burden of proof when exhaustion is pleaded and the same court’s ruling in Linde as to whether three-dimensional products can be trade marks for themselves.
If there any interesting European cases you’d like to see made available in English in the ETMR, click here to alert the IPKat.
• System 3R International v Erowa, where the Stockholm District Court ruled that a company’s use of another’s trade mark for allegedly “descriptive” purposes was not honest commercial use where the “description” was as part of its own trade mark;
• The Polish Administrative Court’s “Bottle” case, where it held that the invalidation of a design registration had no impact on the validity of the registration of that design as a trade mark;
Other cases reported in this issue include the English Court of Appeal decision in Arsenal v Reed , the ECJ’s ruling in Van Doren on the burden of proof when exhaustion is pleaded and the same court’s ruling in Linde as to whether three-dimensional products can be trade marks for themselves.
If there any interesting European cases you’d like to see made available in English in the ETMR, click here to alert the IPKat.
MORE TRADE MARK DECISIONS REPORTED
![<strong>MORE TRADE MARK DECISIONS REPORTED</strong>]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, October 02, 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