Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / CTM appeal / Jeremy Phillips / right to prohibit use of a subsequent mark / use of more than local significance / Twin Peeks? The Peeks and the Cloppenburgs go head-to-head

Twin Peeks? The Peeks and the Cloppenburgs go head-to-head

- , , ,
The UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has kindly reminded the IPKat that the Court of Justice of the European Union will soon have the joy of considering an appeal against a judgment of the General Court: in Case T-506/11 Peek & Cloppenburg. The appeal apparently relates to an opposed application to register as a Community trade mark the words 'Peek & Cloppenburg', which the applicant sought to register for goods in Class 25 and services in Class 35. Says the IPO:
"The grounds of the appeal are an alleged misinterpretation of the criterion 'confers ... the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark' and the concept 'of more than mere local significance'". 
The IPO adds that this case, which now carries the CJEU's reference number C-325/13 P, can be viewed on its website at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-policy/policy-information/ecj/ecj-2013.htm -- but this is not in fact the case ["IPO folks, are you reading this?" asks Merpel]. All you get is a link to the Curia's page for the case which, since it hasn't been heard yet, offers no useful information at all. It wouldn't cost much to add a link to the appealed-against decision in Case T-506/11, would it?

Never mind, if you'd like to advise the British government whether to intervene in this contest between Peek & Cloppenburg (Dusseldorf) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg), you have until next Thursday, 5 September, to do so. Just email Policy here -- and say the IPKat sent you [Merpel remains puzzled by this whole dispute: wouldn't it be more sensible, rather than having Peek & Cloppenburg v Peek & Cloppenburg, to have both the Peeks on one side and both the Cloppenburgs on the other? Then there wouldn't be any problems at all].

Twin Peeks here and here (not for the prudish or the easily-offended; will suit most Australians, especially from Woolloomooloo)
Twin Peaks here and here
Twin Pekes here
Twin Peeks? The Peeks and the Cloppenburgs go head-to-head Twin Peeks? The Peeks and the Cloppenburgs go head-to-head Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, August 29, 2013 Rating: 5

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousFriday, 30 August 2013 at 10:08:00 GMT+1

    Very good comment: how can two identical trade marks coexist in one country? Isn't that forbidden by the unfair business directive?

    ReplyDelete
  2. JeremyFriday, 30 August 2013 at 11:12:00 GMT+1

    Says Anonymous@10.08 "how can two identical trade marks coexist in one country? Isn't that forbidden by the unfair business directive?"

    Well, the UK has two identical trade marks coexisting for beer in Class 32. Would you like a BUDWEISER, or maybe a BUDWEISER would be more to your taste? Mind you, after 3 or 4 glasses, it is quite difficult to tell the difference.

    ReplyDelete

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.