The IPKat has learned that Italy has removed the requirement for the goods of the earlier and later user to be dissimilar from its legislation in detriment/unfair advantage cases. The UK has done the same via statutory instrument following the ECJ's ruling in Adidas v Fitnessworld.

The IPKat would like to know whether other EU Member States have also removed the dissimilar goods/services requirement from their implementations of Arts 4(4)(a) and 5(2) of Directive 89/104. If you have any information, please drop the kat a line. He promises to share the information with his readers (though informants can remain anonymous on request).
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Reviewed by Unknown on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. The Benelux has not yet modified the Benelux Trademark act.


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:

Powered by Blogger.