Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / Jeremy Phillips / SPA CASE FALLS FLAT ON THE FACTS

SPA CASE FALLS FLAT ON THE FACTS

-

No monopoly for Spa Monopole

Also posted today is the Court of First Instance decision in Case T-67/04 Spa Monopole v OHIM, Spa-Finders Travel Arrangements Ltd. Spa-Finders applied to register the words SPA-FINDERS as a Community trade mark for printed publications (Class 16) and travel agency services (Class 39). Spa Monopole opposed under Art.8(5) of Regulation 40/94, citing its earlier German and Benelux marks SPA and LES THERMES DE SPA for various good and services and maintaining that the applicant's mark would take unfair advantage of the repute of its earlier marks or would be detrimental to their distinctive character. The Opposition Division rejected the opposition; the Board of Appeal dismissed Spa Monopole's appeal and, today, so too did the Court of First Instance. Spa Monopole's case was lost principally because of the weakness of its evidence. For the most part, it was unable to prove that its earlier marks had any reputation; nor could it prove "free riding" or use that was detrimental to its distinctive character.

The IPKat thinks the CFI got it right this time. This was really a weak case. If unfair advantage or detriment are argued, you have to be able to get the tribunal to empathise with you. If you can't persuade them to share your sense of outrage, you know you've lost.
SPA CASE FALLS FLAT ON THE FACTS SPA CASE FALLS FLAT ON THE FACTS Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. AnonymousFriday, 27 May 2005 at 19:17:00 GMT+1

    Oh Jeremy, you haven't discussed the actual dilution issue. The CFI said basically that real probability (or words to that effect) of unfair advantage/detriment were necessary in the circumstance, but I think it might have been limiting its comment to oppositions to registration - it's not entirely clear though.

    ReplyDelete

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 )
Powered by Blogger.