IPKAT TRANSLATION WATCH
![IPKAT TRANSLATION WATCH]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Rating:
5 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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
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
The CFI upheld a successful opposition to an application for the mark “Jello Schuhpark” in classes 18 (various leather goods) and 25 (shoes and clothes), based on an earlier registration for the mark “Schuhpark” in Class 25 (clothes and boots). “Schuhpark” was held to be the dominant element, “Jello” being likely to be taken as a mere secondary mark/product line. Pretty standard stuff.
ReplyDeleteStrangely, both the parties, OHIM, and the BoA, were of the view that “Jello” would be understood by consumers to be faux-English for “yellow” - even though “Schufabrik” is clearly German [the German for “yellow” is “gelb”]. See, IP Kat, the rest of Europe can effortlessly swap between languages – time you started to learn!
If the rest of Europe could effortlessly swap between langauges then those involved in this case would know that Jello is American-English for jelly (yum) :-)
ReplyDeleteThe plaintiff did mention that "jello" is English for jelly ("Wackelpudding" in German). But I suppose it would go too far, to expect the average German consumer to understand this translation - much easier to just understand it as it is pronounced. And the pronounciation of "jello" in German is exactly the same as "yellow". Looks like it is just one more of those fake Dinglish words used in German which many people actually believe are proper English words... - like "handy" (= "mobile") or "smoking" (= tuxedo)...
ReplyDeleteYou win. Wackelpudding is a far better word than jelly or jello. I hereby challenge all IPKat readers to incorporate the word Wackelpudding into their conversation today. Prize for the best example.
ReplyDeleteRe WackelpuddingSays IPKat to Merpel: "My dear feline friend, do you like Wackelpudding?"
ReplyDeleteReplies Merpel to IPKat: "I'm afraid I don't know -- I have never actually wackelpudded".
Boom Boom!