And here's another little gem from the European Court of Justice, this time from the Court of First Instance (CFI). In Case T-183/03 Advanced Molecular Evolution Inc v OHIM, decided last Tuesday, the CFI ruled that the word mark ADVANCED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION was descriptive and non-distinctive in respect of the following Class 42 services:
* "The Court finds that there is no need to determine whether the whole of the relevant public needs to be conversant in English for professional purposes. In any event under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 40/94 it is sufficient to establish that since the sign in question is English the relevant public comprises knowledgeable English-speaking consumers" (para. 17).
* "... the Board is entitled to supply definitions of particular terms of its own motion without being bound to rely on specific documents, provided that the definition can be regarded as commonly accepted. In this case the definition, although contested by the applicant, was sufficiently commonplace not to have to be substantiated in the contested decision. OHIM was easily able in its reply to corroborate the definition with the simple aid of a dictionary and an encyclopaedia" (from para. 23).
The IPKat wishes that appeals to the CFI were based on some sort of legal merit, rather than on fact.
Molecular evolution here, here and here
Evolution jokes here, here and here
"Research activities directed toward the molecular engineering of compounds for use in therapeutics, diagnostics, agricultural products, enzymes, chemical products, nutritional products, food additives and industrial applications, including but not limited to, commodity and speciality chemicals".No great shock there, you might think -- and you'd be right. A couple of highlights from an otherwise predictable decision:
* "The Court finds that there is no need to determine whether the whole of the relevant public needs to be conversant in English for professional purposes. In any event under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 40/94 it is sufficient to establish that since the sign in question is English the relevant public comprises knowledgeable English-speaking consumers" (para. 17).
* "... the Board is entitled to supply definitions of particular terms of its own motion without being bound to rely on specific documents, provided that the definition can be regarded as commonly accepted. In this case the definition, although contested by the applicant, was sufficiently commonplace not to have to be substantiated in the contested decision. OHIM was easily able in its reply to corroborate the definition with the simple aid of a dictionary and an encyclopaedia" (from para. 23).
The IPKat wishes that appeals to the CFI were based on some sort of legal merit, rather than on fact.
Molecular evolution here, here and here
Evolution jokes here, here and here
MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLECULE?
![MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLECULE?]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Sunday, September 19, 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