E! in ecstasy over High Court victoryHot off the BAILII website this afternoon is today's ruling of Mr Justice Peter Smith in Deutsche Telekom AG v E! Entertainment Television Inc [2006] EWHC 33 (Ch).
EET applied to register as a series of UK trade marks the words E! ONLINE and E! Online for various goods and services in classes 9,16 and 41. Deutsche, who owned the T-ONLINE UK and CTM for similar goods and service, opposed the application, pleading a likelihood of confusion between the T-ONLINE and EET's marks and also alleging that, by virtue of T-ONLINE's reputation, EET's registration would cause detriment to the distinctive character of the T-ONLINE mark.
The hearing officer examined Deutsche's evidence and found that, at the date EET applied for registration, it could not be said that Deutsche had used its marks to such an extent that they had become particularly distinctive, or that Deutsche had a reputation that could be protected - particularly since the T-ONLINE service was available only in the German language.Deutsche's appeal was dismissed by Peter Smith J. In his opinion the hearing officer’s judgment was unimpeachable: he had correctly set out the law, correctly identified and summarised the relevant evidence and had then applied it in accordance with those principles. What's more, the hearing officer had not erroneously dissected the marks when comparing them.
The IPKat thinks this looks right on the facts. The fact that Deutsche Telekom's T ... is so well-known in its own right does not mean that T-ONLINE has inherited the same degree of reputation.
E! Online here
T-Online hier
Information on Ecstasy here, here and here
Spirit of Ecstasy here
E! IN ONLINE ECSTASY
![E! IN ONLINE ECSTASY]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.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