The November issue of Sweet & Maxwell’s European Trade Mark Reports , slightly delayed by postal strikes in London, is now reaching readers. Cases now available in English for the first time are
• Christian Dior v Makro (Court of Appeal, Madrid), where the sale of luxury perfumes such as POISON and CHRISTIAN DIOR in an out-of-town site alongside dog food and pork bellies was held to infringe those trade marks;
• Boehringer Ingelheim v MTK Pharma (Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht, Germany), where MTK wasn’t able to argue that it was necessary to repackage CATAPRESAN blood pressure products after it was shown that other parallel traders had succeeded in reselling it without the need for repackaging;
If you know of any European trade mark case which you’d like to see reported in the ETMR, please email us and let us know.
• Christian Dior v Makro (Court of Appeal, Madrid), where the sale of luxury perfumes such as POISON and CHRISTIAN DIOR in an out-of-town site alongside dog food and pork bellies was held to infringe those trade marks;
• Boehringer Ingelheim v MTK Pharma (Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht, Germany), where MTK wasn’t able to argue that it was necessary to repackage CATAPRESAN blood pressure products after it was shown that other parallel traders had succeeded in reselling it without the need for repackaging;
If you know of any European trade mark case which you’d like to see reported in the ETMR, please email us and let us know.
LATEST REPORTED TRADE MARK CASES
![LATEST REPORTED TRADE MARK CASES]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[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