A IS FOR AGGRAVATION AS AVEX'S APPLICATION ABORTS


Another ruling yesterday from the EU's Court of First Instance (CFI) was Case T-115/02 AVEX Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market. Avex applied to register as a Community trade mark a figurative sign containing the letter 'a' in relation to class 25 goods (clothing, footwear, headgear, non-Japanese style outwear, coats, sweaters and the like, nightwear, underwear, swimming suits, shirts and the like, socks and stockings, gloves, ties, bandannas, mufflers, hats and caps, shoes and boots, belts, jackets, T-shirts). An opposition, filed by the owner of an earlier figurative mark that also contained the letter 'a' in relation to class 25 goods, succeeded on the basis that, through the similarity of marks and goods, there was a likelihood of confusion. The OHIM Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal, as did the CFI. The only item of note in an otherwise unexceptional decision was the CFI's observation that any view expressed by the Board of Appeal as to the validity of an applicant's trade mark in ex parte proceedings (for example where the applicant is arguing with OHIM over a mark's inherent distinctiveness, see Case R 91/1998-2) is not going to be relevant in proceedings where that mark's similarity to another mark is being considered.

The IPKat sympathises with CTM applicants who get past the hurdle of persuading OHIM that their mark is distinctive, only to find that it is confusingly similar to someone else's earlier mark, but there's no merit in letting such marks on to the register. Money spent litigating these points may be better spent in designing a new mark.

Number of Google hits for the letter "A" today: 3,570,000,000. Time spent finding them: 0.18 seconds
Things that "A" is for here, here and here
Things you might not have thought "A" is for here and here
A IS FOR AGGRAVATION AS AVEX'S APPLICATION ABORTS A IS FOR AGGRAVATION AS AVEX'S APPLICATION ABORTS Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.