Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / dilution / trademark / UK HIGH CT SPINS A YARN

UK HIGH CT SPINS A YARN

- ,
On Wednesday the Chancellor delivered his decision in Hachette Filipacchi Presse v SIP. The case is an appeal from the hearing officer concerning the registrability of ELLE by SIP for yarns, opposed by the publisher of Elle the magazine. The Chancellor dismissed appeals concerning oppositions based on confusion under s.5(2) and unfair advantage under s.5(3).



More from the IPKat anon, when he’s had the chance to read the case properly.
UK HIGH CT SPINS A YARN UK HIGH CT SPINS A YARN Reviewed by Anonymous on Friday, January 26, 2007 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. AnonymousSaturday, 27 January 2007 at 16:25:00 GMT

    Oh dear. It looks as though we're back into the great section 5(2) debate : is there a threshold 'similarity' test or is it, as Messrs Hobbs and Arnold would have us believe, all a matter of degree ?

    Hmmm... I wonder if this is all a distinction without a difference, and that really everyone is on the same side. Some choose to use the 't' word "threshold" and others don't.

    ReplyDelete

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.