The IPKat has just received the exciting news that, from this very month of January 2009, the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation will be known as the IP Federation. This new name, says the Federation's press release, "portrays a contemporary, fresher image for the Federation, which continues to represent the views of UK industry on intellectual property policy and practice matters within the EU, the UK and internationally". The Federation press release says lots of lovely things about itself, many of which are perfectly true and the rest of which are quite excusable in the excitement of the make-over. The IPKat wishes the Federation the best of luck in its new incarnation, as (he suspects) do those poor souls who used to dread having to fit "Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation" into the little space available on window envelopes. Merpel says, there's something about the style and simplicity of the new logo that does rather remind her of that of the Intellectual Property Institute, whose headquarters is less than a mile away. She wonders, if one logo had been protected by a registered trade mark and the other was the subject of an application to register it for identical or highly similar services, might there not be just an itsy-bitsy argument in support of a likelihood of confusion?
What do the IPKat's readers think? Do let him -- and Merpel -- know!
TMPDF: the Feds get modern
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, January 19, 2009
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, January 19, 2009
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
has either of them registered their logo as a tm?
ReplyDeleteThe only overlapping part (the characters IP) is purely descriptive for an IP organization, while everything else differs: the font in which IP is cast, the word Federation being horizontally placed, while the word Institute is vertically placed, the blue circle in the sign of the IP Institute that is absent from the sign of the IP Federation, the silly thing at the top of the I of the IP Federation that is absent from the sign of the IP Instutite. There is clearly no trade mark infringement here.
ReplyDeleteA quick search on the IPO website suggests they haven't.
ReplyDeleteWhatever possessed a trademarks association to adopt TMPDF as a trade name and logo, in the first place?
ReplyDeleteThe light blue element in both designs share a subtle and abstract similarity.
Doesn't this clearly show the danger of using a descriptive name. Office Cleaning Services v Westminster Window and General Cleaners (1946) 63 RPC 39 comes to mind. "IP" should be free for anyone in that industry to use. Apart from IP everything else is different.
ReplyDeletecould one place the two tms side by side and compare, obviously no...then...one look at the two tms and you conclude hm...that tms are similar...hard to distinguish colors (dark navy and black, the blue elements ... successfully puts ones pictorial memory to test. Differences in fonts and the associated texts are of little help in differentiating the two tms from each other
ReplyDeleteStop stirring Jeremy ! I agree with anonymouses 2 and 5. Another case that comes to mind is Reed v Reed, rather more recent than OCS. The thinking is that with IP being entirely descriptive/non-distinctive, the av. consumer (more than resonably circumspect in this case !?) will look for the smallest differences to distinguish between the two. Federation and Institute are very different, n'est pas ?
ReplyDeleteJeremy isn't stirring: for once he's right, or would be if this was a CTM issue. Apply the ECJ/CFI/OHIM standard test for global comparison of signs, assuming imperfect recall on the part of the relevant consumer and the fact that the two bodies do much the same sort of thing (I think) and you'd have a definite likelihood of confusion.
ReplyDeleteWhat would be Jeremy's reaction to a new blog entitled "IPDog" or "IPTiger"?
ReplyDelete