The IPKat has spotted with some surprise that Saturday's Official Journal of the European Union published Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version). This version replaces First Council Directive 89/104, coming into force twenty days following its publication, which would seem to give us 28 November 2008.
Fortunately, according to the appended Correlation Table virtually all the Articles of 89/104 retain their numbering in the new version. Any inconvenience experienced by the trade mark professions is nothing compared with what will happen when the Community Trade Mark Regulation is codified (see earlier posts here and here).
Fortunately, according to the appended Correlation Table virtually all the Articles of 89/104 retain their numbering in the new version. Any inconvenience experienced by the trade mark professions is nothing compared with what will happen when the Community Trade Mark Regulation is codified (see earlier posts here and here).
STOP PRESS: New Directive replaces 89/104
![STOP PRESS: New Directive replaces 89/104]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, November 10, 2008
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
So what (if any) significant changes are there between the old directive and the new one?
ReplyDeleteI noticed that in relation to dilution infringement "not similar" remains (in other words, the Directive does not take account of Adidas v Fitnessworld). One wonders why this could not have be resolved.
ReplyDeleteI think that, to resolve the "not similar" issue, the process would have had to be a truly legislative one rather than a mechanical consolidation/codification exercise. Once that happens, all the other bits of the Directive are presumably up for grabs too.
ReplyDeleteIt's strictly a codification of existing texts (the initial directive and it's later amendments). There is no substantive change in the new text.
ReplyDeleteApparently the Internal Market directorate of the Commission had nothing better to do. There are a couple of other IP texts which have been codified as well or are about to be.