Back in September 2003, Lord Justice Jacob delivered a paper(which has recently become available) at the Third European Trade Mark Judges’ Symposium on “Relative grounds for refusal: extent of the trade mark proprietor’s rights”, which he co-wrote with Geoffrey Hobbs QC. The piece contains many insights into the thinking of two of the UK’s most eminent IP specialists. Of note is:
♦ their discussion, and grudging partial dismissal of, a three-layered scheme of infringement protection involving mutually exclusive umbras and penumbras of protection;
♦ the highlighting of the need for their to be an “outer limit” to where unregistrability/infringement can be found under Article 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/104
♦ various suggestions made by them about the desirable scope of Article 5(2) e.g. a need for trade mark use by a defendant and the need to properly substantiate the existence or likelihood of misappropriation or impairment of the earlier mark.
♦ their condemnation of specifications of goods or services that are excessive relative to the commercial interests of the proprietor, including the OHIM practice of allowing registrations of CTMs for whole class heading provided for in the Nice Classification, even if the proprietor will only use the mark for some of the goods/services contained therein.
The IPKat needs some help though. At one stage (para 17), the authors claim:
“Marks which converge upon a particular mode or element of expression may or may not be found upon due consideration to be distinctively similar. The position varies according to the propensity of the particular mode or element of expression to be perceived in the context of the marks as a whole, as origin specific or origin netural.”
Anyone who can explain to the IPKat (i) what this paragraph means and/or (ii) what the term “distinctively similar” means – after all, if something is distinctive from another thing, it usually means that it’s different from it - is in line for the IPKat’s usual lavish yet tasteful prize.
More three-layered schemes here, here and here
Outer limits here
♦ their discussion, and grudging partial dismissal of, a three-layered scheme of infringement protection involving mutually exclusive umbras and penumbras of protection;
♦ the highlighting of the need for their to be an “outer limit” to where unregistrability/infringement can be found under Article 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/104
♦ various suggestions made by them about the desirable scope of Article 5(2) e.g. a need for trade mark use by a defendant and the need to properly substantiate the existence or likelihood of misappropriation or impairment of the earlier mark.
♦ their condemnation of specifications of goods or services that are excessive relative to the commercial interests of the proprietor, including the OHIM practice of allowing registrations of CTMs for whole class heading provided for in the Nice Classification, even if the proprietor will only use the mark for some of the goods/services contained therein.
The IPKat needs some help though. At one stage (para 17), the authors claim:
“Marks which converge upon a particular mode or element of expression may or may not be found upon due consideration to be distinctively similar. The position varies according to the propensity of the particular mode or element of expression to be perceived in the context of the marks as a whole, as origin specific or origin netural.”
Anyone who can explain to the IPKat (i) what this paragraph means and/or (ii) what the term “distinctively similar” means – after all, if something is distinctive from another thing, it usually means that it’s different from it - is in line for the IPKat’s usual lavish yet tasteful prize.
More three-layered schemes here, here and here
Outer limits here
IPKAT RIDDLE: A DISTINCTLY PROBLEMATIC PARAGRAPH
![IPKAT RIDDLE: A DISTINCTLY PROBLEMATIC PARAGRAPH]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Friday, February 13, 2004
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