Do you get the picture?

Today's ruling in Case T-307/08 Aldi Einkauf v OHIM - Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (4 OUT Living) is a decision of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on an appeal by Aldi against a partially successful opposition lodged by Goya against its application to register a figurative sign, "4 OUT Living", in the face of a likelihood of confusion with an earlier Spanish figurative mark "Living & Co".

If you click here you can read the judgment in full, and you get the impression that both figurative marks are reproduced. However, the IPKat finds annoyingly that he quite often gets the "image not found" text and icon (as happened to him here), which means he has no means of comparing the marks.

This causes the Kat to wonder -- since he has achieved the same depressing result over the years on several different computers and when using different browsers -- whether the problem is confined to him or whether there are hordes of people out there who have the same difficulty in comparing figurative marks on the Curia site. Accordingly he's holding a swift micro-poll (see left-hand sidebar) to try to gauge how many visitors to the Curia site can actually see the images. If enough of us can't view the images, it may be time to make some discreet representations to the court.
Do you get the picture? Do you get the picture? Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 Rating: 5


  1. The images might not be there but at least it's in English..

  2. If you check the HTML, you will observe that it has nothing to do with what browser you are using: the "Image not found" message is not being generated by your browser, but is part of the webpage. I can only assume the content is automatically-generated from a database, and there is a bug in the code that creates the page. Changing browsers, users, etc. will not fix this: you need to tell Curia to mend their server.

  3. You should count yourself lucky. If you're working on a blackberry, which I am most of the time, then you don't even get to see the text of the judgment let alone the pictures.

  4. I'm not on a blackberry and I don't see the text or images either!

  5. The Kat's link goes to a page with a few search results. When I tried it last night, the full text of the judgment wasn't listed amongst the results! There were just a couple of abstracts of it, and a couple of entries that appeared irrelevant.

    However, a link to the full text judgment is now back in the results list. (And no, I don't see the images either.)

    Curia do seem to have a problem.

  6. No pics for me either - looks like they have a problem with the PERL script

  7. the ironic thing is that I can't see the poll upon which to vote ...


    Not Found
    The requested URL /reviews/polls/display/4231714449447600003/blogger_template/run_app?txtclr=%23000000&lnkclr=%230d1db8&chrtclr=%230d1db8&font=normal+normal+97%25+Trebuchet%2C+Trebuchet+MS%2C+Arial%2C+sans-serif&hideq=true& was not found on this server.


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.