LATEST EUROPEAN TRADE MARK REPORTS


The June issue of the European Trade Mark Reports has now been published, somewhat ahead of schedule. This issue contains a curious collection of decisions relating to infringement, validity and the elusive concept of the likelihood of confusion. Two cases are available in English for the first time. They are:

*House of Prince A/S v Lidl Stiftung & Co KG, in which the Court of Appeal of The Hague (The Netherlands) rejected cigarette maker PRINCE OF BLENDS' claim that the competing GOLDPRINCE brand infringed its Benelux registration, remitting to the District Court the nullification claim lodged by the owners of GOLDPRINCE against PRINCE OF BLENDS;

*Ta'am Teva (1988) Tivoli Ltd v Ambrosia Supaherb Ltd and others, where the Jerualem Supreme Court had to rule on the similarity of two marks which had some aural similarity but where one was written in Hebrew letters, the other in English ones.

This issue also features (among other cases) the ECJ Advocate General's Opinion in Case 404/02 Nichols, on the registrability of common surnames and Mr Justice Patten's judgment in Intel v Sihra, a UK decision on the protection (perhaps the overprotection) of a well-known mark.
LATEST EUROPEAN TRADE MARK REPORTS LATEST EUROPEAN TRADE MARK REPORTS Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, May 21, 2004 Rating: 5

1 comment:

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

Powered by Blogger.