
* Kustom Musical Amplification Inc v OHIM, an important CFI ruling on how evidence of use of an applied-for Community trade mark (in this case the applicant's BEAST "pointy guitar") found on websites should be treated in the course of OHIM proceedings;
* CFA Institute's Application; Opposition of the Chartered Insurance Institute (UK Trade Mark Registry), this being a ruling that the use of the word "chartered" as part of the text of a figurative mark could be regarded as liable to deceive the lay sector of the relevant public that users of the mark had been approved by a body possessing a royal charter;
* Irish Stock Exchange Ltd's Application (OHIM Second Board of Appeal), holding that the distinctiveness of the apparently descriptive words ALTERNATIVE SECURITIES MARKET cannot be inferred from a long absence on the part of others of the need to use it for their own services;
* Internet Auction II (Bundesgerichtshof, Germany), on the extent to which internet auction sites can be held liable in Germany for hosting offers to sell counterfeit products, and on whether relief is available in respect of future infringing sales as well as past ones.



* Riemann & Co v Linco Care Ltd (the P20/C20 case on the balance of convenience when granting interim injunctive relief, noted by the IPKat here)The ECC often contains reports on IP decisions from France and Germany, though there are none in this issue.
* Cantor Gaming Ltd v Gameaccount Global Ltd, a decision on inunctive relief for copyright infringement discussed by the IPKat here, and subsequently revisited on the question of costs here).
Four recent issues fron Sweet & Maxwell
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Sunday, November 04, 2007
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