The UK Patent Office has published a list of the first batch of references to the ECJ relating to IP made in 2005:

-References made in the two August Storck cases, regarding the registrability of Werthers toffee sweets and their wrapping. The IPKat says that this case is particularly interesting because in one of the cases the CFI applied the need to keep certain marks free for others to use to lack of distinctiveness, even though its more traditional domain is descriptiveness.
-Commission of the European Communities v the Kingdom of Spain – alleged failure of Spain to properly implement the public lending and retain rights
-Adam Opel AG v Autec AG – does a toy scale model of a real car infringe the real car-maker’s trade marks? Trade mark use rears its ugly head again in the referred questions…
-Siemens AG v VIPA gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozebautomatisierung mbH – interpretation of the Comparative Advertising Directive.

It’s yummy – but is it a trade mark?

The IPKat salutes the Patent Office for providing this incredibly valuable service. He has one tiny criticism though – it’d be nice to see the countries that have made the references recorded. The IPKat also advises his readers to read the information about how the Patent Office deals with ECJ references from other Member States/appeals from CFI decision.

Sweet shapes here
Why Werthers are better than sex (and other toffee trivia) here
Werthers for grown-ups here
2005 ECJ CASES 2005 ECJ CASES Reviewed by Anonymous on Monday, April 04, 2005 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.