The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is once again being kept busy by a variety of cases involving intellectual property issues. Among the many disputes that the ECJ and its little brother the Court of First Instance (CFI) have to consider are the following:
Tuesday 13 February
Case C-132/05 Commission v Germany, a hearing of an action against Germany for failing to provide adequate geographical indication protection against use of the word 'Parmesan' for products that do not conform to the specification of the protected designation of origin 'Parmigiano Reggiano'.
Case T-256/04 Mundipharma v OHIM, Altana Pharma (RESPICUR). Here the CFI is giving judgment in an appeal arising from the Board of Appeal's refusal to uphold an opposition to a Community trade mark application brought by the holder of a national word mark RESPICORT for goods in Class 5 RESPICUR for goods in the same class.
Case T-353/04 Ontex v OHIM, Curon Medical (CURON). This time the action is brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark EURON for goods in Class 10 to set aside the Board of Appeal's decision to reverse the decision of the Opposition Division to prohibit registration of the word mark CURON for goods and services in Classes 10, 41 and 42.
Wednesday 14 February
Today we have judgment in a staff case, Case T-435/04 Simões Dos Santos v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market. The applicant inwas promoted to Grade A5 in 2002. On that occasion, the Appointing Authority notified him of an outstanding balance of 54.19 points. Nevertheless, by letter of 15 December 2003 from the Department of Human Resources, he learnt that his points total at 30 September 2003 was only 1.5 points. It follows from that letter, which constitutes the contested decision, that that reduction in points is not the result of the conversion of the points awarded before the new system established by the Office's decision ADM-03-35, but of a complete cancellation thereof, in consequence of the application of the new rule for starting at zero after promotion, as laid down in that decision [Merpel says, aren't you pleased you don't work at OHIM?].
Thursday 15 February
Case C-239/05 BVBA Management, Training en Consultancy. This is reference for a preliminary ruling from Hof van beroep te Brussel arising from an application to register 'The Kitchen Company' and looks like it's seeking clarification of the ECJ's earlier judgment in Koninklijke KPN Nederland (POSTKANTOOR). The IPKat notes that this case is diarised as "Company law" ...
Case T-501/04 Bodegas Franco-Españolas v OHIM, Companhia Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro (ROYAL). Judgment in an action brought by the applicant for a Community trade mark for the word ROYAL for goods in Class 33 in the teeth of opposition by the proprietor of the international, Community and national figurative and verbal marks ROYAL BRANDE, ROYAL FEITORIA and Royal Oporto Wine Company in respect of goods in Class 33.
Case T-204/04 Indorata-Serviços e Gestão v OHIM (HAIRTRANSFER). Judgment in an appeal against the persistent refusal of OHIM to allow registration of the word mark HAIRTRANSFER for goods in Classes 8, 22, 41 and 44.
Tuesday 13 February
Case C-132/05 Commission v Germany, a hearing of an action against Germany for failing to provide adequate geographical indication protection against use of the word 'Parmesan' for products that do not conform to the specification of the protected designation of origin 'Parmigiano Reggiano'.
Case T-256/04 Mundipharma v OHIM, Altana Pharma (RESPICUR). Here the CFI is giving judgment in an appeal arising from the Board of Appeal's refusal to uphold an opposition to a Community trade mark application brought by the holder of a national word mark RESPICORT for goods in Class 5 RESPICUR for goods in the same class.
Case T-353/04 Ontex v OHIM, Curon Medical (CURON). This time the action is brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark EURON for goods in Class 10 to set aside the Board of Appeal's decision to reverse the decision of the Opposition Division to prohibit registration of the word mark CURON for goods and services in Classes 10, 41 and 42.Wednesday 14 February
Today we have judgment in a staff case, Case T-435/04 Simões Dos Santos v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market. The applicant inwas promoted to Grade A5 in 2002. On that occasion, the Appointing Authority notified him of an outstanding balance of 54.19 points. Nevertheless, by letter of 15 December 2003 from the Department of Human Resources, he learnt that his points total at 30 September 2003 was only 1.5 points. It follows from that letter, which constitutes the contested decision, that that reduction in points is not the result of the conversion of the points awarded before the new system established by the Office's decision ADM-03-35, but of a complete cancellation thereof, in consequence of the application of the new rule for starting at zero after promotion, as laid down in that decision [Merpel says, aren't you pleased you don't work at OHIM?].
Thursday 15 February
Case C-239/05 BVBA Management, Training en Consultancy. This is reference for a preliminary ruling from Hof van beroep te Brussel arising from an application to register 'The Kitchen Company' and looks like it's seeking clarification of the ECJ's earlier judgment in Koninklijke KPN Nederland (POSTKANTOOR). The IPKat notes that this case is diarised as "Company law" ...
Case T-501/04 Bodegas Franco-Españolas v OHIM, Companhia Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro (ROYAL). Judgment in an action brought by the applicant for a Community trade mark for the word ROYAL for goods in Class 33 in the teeth of opposition by the proprietor of the international, Community and national figurative and verbal marks ROYAL BRANDE, ROYAL FEITORIA and Royal Oporto Wine Company in respect of goods in Class 33.
Case T-204/04 Indorata-Serviços e Gestão v OHIM (HAIRTRANSFER). Judgment in an appeal against the persistent refusal of OHIM to allow registration of the word mark HAIRTRANSFER for goods in Classes 8, 22, 41 and 44.
What's on in Luxembourg this week?
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, February 12, 2007
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, February 12, 2007
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