Issue 2 of the Sweet & Maxwell European Trade Mark Reports has now been published, slightly ahead of its cover date of February 2004. Cases available in English for the first time include
• Guinness United Distillers & Vintners v Koninklijke Cooymans BV (Court of Appeal of Den Bosch, the Netherlands): the plain white bottle shape of MALIBU coconut liqueur was held validly registered and infringed;
• Mast-Jagermeister v A & S Vin & Spirit Aktiebolag (Supreme Court, Stockholm): confusing similarity between JAGER and JAGERMEISTER alcohol marks on the one hand and JAGARBRYANNVIN on the other;
• Pebex Trade Mark (Supreme Administrative Court, Poland): battle between two companies for control of the use of the company name/trade mark PEBEX.
This issue also features two important European Court of Justice decisions -- OHIM v Wrigley (on the registrability of DOUBLEMINT) and Adidas v Fitnessworld -- as well as a number of Court of First Instance decisions.
If you know of any European trade mark cases that you think should be reported, please send us an email.
• Guinness United Distillers & Vintners v Koninklijke Cooymans BV (Court of Appeal of Den Bosch, the Netherlands): the plain white bottle shape of MALIBU coconut liqueur was held validly registered and infringed;
• Mast-Jagermeister v A & S Vin & Spirit Aktiebolag (Supreme Court, Stockholm): confusing similarity between JAGER and JAGERMEISTER alcohol marks on the one hand and JAGARBRYANNVIN on the other;
• Pebex Trade Mark (Supreme Administrative Court, Poland): battle between two companies for control of the use of the company name/trade mark PEBEX.
This issue also features two important European Court of Justice decisions -- OHIM v Wrigley (on the registrability of DOUBLEMINT) and Adidas v Fitnessworld -- as well as a number of Court of First Instance decisions.
If you know of any European trade mark cases that you think should be reported, please send us an email.
LATEST ETMR CASES
Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo
on
Sunday, January 25, 2004
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