The February 2005 issue of Sweet & Maxwell's European Trade Mark Reports has now been published. Among the cases in this issue are English-language translations of the following cases:

* Emmanuel de Landtsheer v Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin and LVHM Fashion Group (Brussels Court of Appeal) - a vigorous scrap over the issues of validity and infringement of a colour mark (orange, as usual ...)

* Geoffrey Inc v Nails R Us - Instituto de Beleza e Saude LDA (Court of Appeal, Lisbon) - on the power of a trade mark owner to oppose the registration of an allegedly confusingly similar name as a business name.

Rennie: the Finnish Supreme Court provided welcome relief ...

* Roche Consumer Health (Worldwide) Ltd v Vitabalans Oy (Supreme Court, Finland) - whether RENICHEW, used by the defendant for health foods, was likely to be confused with the RENNIE device mark and the DIGESTIF RENNIE word mark for goods in Class 5.

* Paglieri Spa v Gabbiano SpA (Court of Cassation, Rome) - on locus standi to seek a declaration of invalidity of the FARAMED trade mark.
Apart from these decisions, there are cases from the Court of First Instance, from OHIM and from the UK. As usual, if you know of any interesting and/or important trade mark case that ought in your opinion to be reported in the ETMR, don't forget to tell the IPKat.
LATEST EUROPEAN TRADE MARK CASES LATEST EUROPEAN TRADE MARK CASES Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 Rating: 5


  1. Great site very informative topics on health insurance lead.
    I have been working on a site about health insurance lead
    and would be very pleased if you would take a look and let me know what you think.

  2. RSS Announcer instantly and automatically submits your RSS feeds


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:

Powered by Blogger.