On Wednesday the European Court of Justice's Court of First Instance (CFI) dismissed the appeal of Proteome (Case T-387/03, Proteome Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market) to register the word BIOKNOWLEDGE as a Community trade mark for
– Class 9: ‘Databases, in physical and electronic form, providing information relating to organisms, and computer software for use in searching, retrieving, compiling, organising, managing, analysing, communicating and/or integrating data in and among repositories of information in electronic form, including computer databases’;The application was dismissed on the grounds that the mark was both devoid of distinctive character for those goods and services and that it was comprised exclusively of terms that described them: see Regulation 40/94, Art.7(1)(b) and (c). The OHIM Board of Appeal dismissed Proteome's appeal and a further appeal was lodged with the CFI. The CFI dismissed the appeal, rightly holding (in the IPKat's opinion) that the word was descriptive and that BIOKNOWLEDGE could not be described as a syntactically unusual juxtaposition of the prefex "bio-" and the word "knowledge".
– Class 16: ‘Printed material, including guides and manuals, concerning repositories of information relating to organisms’;
– Class 42: ‘Information and computer services, namely developing and/or providing access to databases containing information relating to organisms, and computer software related thereto’.
BIOKNOWLEDGE NOT REGISTRABLE FOR BIOKNOWLEDGE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, January 21, 2005
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