The December 2003 issue of the Sweet & Maxwell European Trade Mark Reports (ETMR) has now been published. Among foreign-language trade mark decisions reported in full in English are the following:

* Jack Daniels and Bacardi v Licores Navarres (Provincial Court of Valencia, Spain): another Spanish decision in which the court refuses to apply the principle of regional exhaustion of rights.
* Callaway Golf Company v Big Bertha srl (Court of Perugia, Italy): sale of BIG BERTHA cashmere products infringes the Italian registration of BIG BERTHA for golfing equipment.
* SA Iliad v Cedric A (Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, France): Injunction ordered for infringement of the ANNU trade mark even though the infringement ceased 15 months before the trial.
* Odyssee Interactive v L’isle des Medias (Tribunal de Commerce de Grenoble, France): which is the proper court to hear internet-related trade mark disputes in France?

In addition, this issue carries numerous reports on trade mark cases from the European Court of Justice, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and other jurisdictions.

The ETMR is edited by the IPKat’s masters Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon, who would like to hear from you if you know of an interesting recent case which is worth considering for publication in the ETMR. To contact us, email here.

RECENT EUROPEAN TRADE MARK CASES RECENT EUROPEAN TRADE MARK CASES Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 Rating: 5

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:

Powered by Blogger.