Latest ETMR

The September 2006 issue of Sweet & Maxwell's monthly European Trade Mark Reports has now been published, once again ahead of schedule (well done, Sweets). Cases reported in English for the first time in this issue are
* SA Inès de la Fressange v Inès Seignard de la Fressange (Cour d'appel de Paris, France) - a celebrity, having assigned trade mark rights to her name, is nonetheless protected against the assignee's false representation that she remains associated with the assignee's business;

* PepsiCo Inc v Coca-Cola (District Court, Utrecht, The Netherlands) - action for infringement of Benelux mark is an abuse of process, where a previous action for infringement of the identical Community trade mark was already rejected.
Another fascinating decision reported in this issue is Adidas-Salomon AG v Draper (Chancery Division, England and Wales), in which adidas won the first round of what will probably be a lengthy struggle against the world's tennis authorities as to whether their rules can limit the use of adidas' three-stripe trade mark on tenniswear used in major tournaments.

As usual, the IPKat is delighted to receive suggestions from his readers as to any cases they'd like to see reported in full in the ETMR. Please email your suggestions here.
LATEST ETMR LATEST ETMR Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, August 20, 2006 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:

Powered by Blogger.