Seulement en Francaise
It's only in French, but it's a decision of the Court of First Instance on the registrability of a sign as a Community trade mark. The case is Case T-169/04 Arysta Lifescience SAS v OHIM, BASF AG.
The IPKat thinks that this is what it's about. Arysta's application was for CARPOVIRUSINE and BASF had an earlier national registration of CARPO, both for products in Class 5. The rest would be guesswork, the IPKat regretfully concedes, but it looks to him as though BASF's opposition succeeded and that Arysta's appeal has been dismissed. If anyone can corroborate by posting a note below, the Kat will glow with happiness.Merpel tells the IPKat, the only thing YOU glow with at this time of year isn't information about CFI decisions ... but she wonders if CARPOVIRUSINE is some sort of fish vaccine.
Interim damages awards
Right: the Kat is always on the lookout for useful practice tips
On Monday the IPKat was asking about interim damages awards in infringement cases, where damages might be paid over to a successful claimant who might later have to pay them back. Since then he's received several emails/phonecalls from people saying things like "oh, what an interesting question" or "I do look forward to seeing the answers" - but he's received no answers himself. Is this something that has happened so infrequently that no-one has any familiarity with the relevant issues at all? Or it is something that is often raised but gets shot down in flames by unsympathetic judges? If you do know anything about this subject, or can recommend a good read, please share it here or post a comment below. By the way, this inquiry is NOT confined to UK law and practice. Anyone can chip in ...
TRANSLATION WATCH; ALL QUIET ON THE INTERIM DAMAGES FRONT
![TRANSLATION WATCH; ALL QUIET ON THE INTERIM DAMAGES FRONT]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Rating:
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
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