
The IPKat brings you news of Case T-35/04 Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE v OHIM, Ferrero OHG mbH, decided yesterday by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (CFI).
Athinaiki applied to register as a Community trade mark a figurative mark containing the word FERRO in relation to foods in classes 29, 30 and related services in Class 42. Ferrero opposed, relying on its earlier German word mark FERRERO for various goods in classes 5, 29, 30, 32 and 33, in particular chocolate and non-alcoholic beverages, and maintaining that, by virtue of the marks' similarity, there was a likelihood of confusion.
The IPKat wonders what impelled the CFI to spend so much time and effort in this case. Was it the persistence of Athinaiki's representative, the desire to place the dispute beyond any further doubt or for some more subtle reason? Merpel says, perhaps the CFI enjoys trade mark cases as much as we do!
Ferro here. Ferrero here. Ferrari here.

Translation watch ... again
Case T‑31/04, Eurodrive Services and Distribution NV v OHIM, Jesús Gómez Frías, was also decided by the CFI yesterday, alas not in English. If any friendly and linguistically talented reader of this blog would like to post a comment, below, on what this case is about, the Kat will be totally thrilled.
FERRO, FERRERO, FEROCIOUS ...; TRANSLATION WATCH
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Rating:
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