Monday miscellany

The IPKat noted here the decision of Mr Justice Arnold last May in L'Oréal SA and others v eBay International AG and others [2009] EWHC 1094 (Ch). On 12 August the court, as it said it would do, referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling. You can read the questions in full on Class 46 here.

QFinance the Ultimate Resource is a sort of coffee-table book for people who occupy a particular space in the world of business and finance. Typically, they need lots of information, have short attention spans and can lift really heavy volumes (the rupture factor is at danger levels). It's published by Bloomsbury Publishing and costs £125. Some of the intellectual property bits are written by IPKat team member Jeremy, who also had the opportunity to act as peer reviewer for some of the other chapters. If you fit the description above, or want to put some reading matter in your office reception area which is too heavy for clients to steal, this is the book for you. You can get all the details here.

Another case the IPKat reviewed earlier this year is Daimler v Sany, in which Daimler sued Sany for trade mark infringement and passing off, claiming that Sany's device mark (right) caused confusion with and took unfair advantage of, or caused detriment to the well-known Mercedes Benz figurative mark (below left). The Mercedes mark was registered in Classes 7 and 12 and Sany had applied to register its own mark in Classes 7 and 12, together with a statement supporting the application saying that Sany had been using the mark, or had an intention that it would be so used. Sany counterclaimed for part-cancellation of Daimler's mark. In May Geoffrey Hobbs QC refused Daimler's request for summary judgment (see the IPKat here). On Friday, focusing on just one infringement issue (Daimler having dropped its claims based on passing off and trade mark infringement through likelihood of confusion) Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division Susan Prevezer QC held there was no trade mark infringement on the remaining ground (taking advantage, without due cause, if the repute or distinctive character of Daimler's mark) as no link in the mind of the consumer was established: the average consumer, looking at the Sany logo, wouldn't call to mind Daimler's 3 pointed star mark. She added that, even if this were not the case, she would not have found that the use by Sany took unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the Daimler brand. She also dismissed the counterclaim (you can read the judgment in full here). The IPKat's friend Peter Brownlow (Bird & Bird), who acted for Sany, observes that tis is one of the first High Court cases in England and Wales to apply the recent ECJ decision in L'Oreal v Bellure in assessing how far trade mark protection extends for marks with a reputation.

Haikus keep coming in, but remember that the closing date for the competition -- for which the prize is complimentary registration for CLT's annual Copying Without Infringing conference -- is 31 October, which is only a few short days away. Entries should be emailed to the IPKat here with the subject line 'haiku'.

Online gaming has become a major industry in about as long as it takes to toss a couple of dice, but there's not much available legal reading matter on the subject. Enter GamingTechLAW: the Blog on gaming and technology law, and whatever sounds interesting..., masterminded by Giulio Coraggio (an Associate in Lovells' Rome office). The content, in English, has quite an Italian flavour -- but that's no bad thing: so have many of the world's most tasty delicacies. Good luck Giulio, and enjoy the blogging!
Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, October 26, 2009 Rating: 5

1 comment:

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.