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 / ANOTHER ONE FOR THE IPKAT TRANSLATION WATCH

ANOTHER ONE FOR THE IPKAT TRANSLATION WATCH

-

It's available in 14 European Union official languages, but alas not in English: it's Case T-303/03 Lidl Stiftung v OHIM, Rewe-Zentral.

Guessing at the meaning of the non-English texts, the IPKat thinks that Rewe applied to register as a Community trade mark the word SALVITA for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32; Lidl opposed, citing its earlier registration of the word mark SOLEVITA for Class 32 goods. The opposition failed, as did Lidl's appeal to the Court of First Instance. The IPKat would be grateful for any more information, from any of his readers.
ANOTHER ONE FOR THE IPKAT TRANSLATION WATCH ANOTHER ONE FOR THE IPKAT TRANSLATION WATCH Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, June 07, 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

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.