Advocate General Léger has delivered his opinion in Björnekulla Fruktindustrier v Procordia Food on the interpretation of Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 89/104 (the Trade Mark Directive). In order to determine when a mark is liable for revocation because it has become a common name in the trade for a product or service for which it is registered, we must look, in a global manner from the point of view of consumers and end-users of the types of goods or services concerned AND from the point of view of traders who commercialise that category of goods or services. The IPKat can't tell you any more because this is yet another case where the English translation is as yet unavailable. The IPKat is grateful though to Daphne Zografos of Queen Mary IPRI for translating the Advocate General's conclusions.
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DECISION IN BJÖRNEKULLA - BUT NO ENGLISH YET
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Rating:
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