Latest CFI decisions - NOT for the English

ilHe might be insular, he might be ignorant - but no-one can say the IPKat's not conscientious when it comes to publicising the existence of some fresh rulings from the Court of First Instance this morning on Community trade mark law. Today's three not-for-English-readers cases are as follows:

Case T‑137/05, Gruppo La Perla SpA v OHIM, Worldgem Brands. This decision, in French and Italian only, deals with an application to register the words NIMEI LA PERLA MODERN CLASSIC and an opposition based on the two La Perla figurative marks (left and right) and the word mark LA PERLA PARFUMS.

Case T‑491/04, Merant GmbH v OHIM, Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH. This decision, also only in French and German, appears to involve an application to register the word FOCUS, opposed by the owner of an earlier figurative representation of the word MICROFOCUS (above, left).

Case T‑158/05, Trek Bicycle Corp. v OHIM, Audi AG. This decision, in French and German only, appears to relate to an application to register ALLTREK, opposed by the proprietor of the earlier mark TREK. This may be something to do with a bicycle.

Right: illustration from Cat, by B. Kliban

The IPKat invites multilingual readers to let him know if any of these decisions is of any genuine legal significance. Merpel says, the inhabitants of Malta await with bated breath the translation of these decisions into their own fair and ancient tongue.
Latest CFI decisions - NOT for the English Latest CFI decisions  -  NOT for the English Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 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.