Two Community trade mark appeals head for the CJEU: do you want to have a say?

Following an adverse ruling by the General Court in Case T-221/12, Sunrider has launched an appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union in what is now renumbered as Case C-142/14 P The Sunrider Corporation v OHIM.  At stake is the question whether Nannerl's SUN FRESH mark can be registered as a Community trade mark for beers, fizzy drinks and other beverages in the face of an opposition based on Sunrider's Community and national word and figurative marks that included the words "Sunny Fresh", registered for (among other things) medical food preparations and beverages.. One of the interesting points at stake is the definition and scope of the word "medical" in Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use and Article 2(1) of Regulation 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency-- a definitional issue that this Kat might perhaps have expected to crop up in patent law rather than trade mark law.

The UK Intellectual Property Office invites comments from interested parties so that it can advise the UK government whether to make a submission to the CJEU.  You have until noon, British Summer Time, on Wednesday 23 July to let the office know: just email your thoughts to


Do you remember Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12 Mega Brands International v OHIM, Diset?   This lately joined action managed to get itself reported twice on this weblog [here and here], so if you missed it the first time you may well have encountered it second time round.  This Community trade mark opposition is also on its way to the CJEU, with the applicant to register the "magnext" figurative and word marks lined up against the owner of the Spanish registered word mark MAGNET 4 and Community figurative mark containing the words "Diset Magnetics".  As things stand, Mega Brands can register the figurative mark but not the word mark, since the former is not confusingly similar to MAGNET 4 while the latter is. As this blog commented back in February:
"Subject to any further appeal to the CJEU (which should only be on a point of law, which would be hard to find here), the opposition against the word mark is complete and successful. The device mark is still in play ...".
Though it appears both logical and correct in law to conclude that the figurative mark can be registered while the word mark can't, the IPKat wonders what it will mean in practice if the figurative mark appears on goods but no use may be made of the word that appears so prominently within it.  What will invoices, orders, advertisements look like, not to mention radio advertisements ...?  Trade marks are used both by their owners and their consumers, who will likely use the confusingly similar M-word when asking for the product of their choice.

If you would like to advise the UK government to make representations in this case please email by noon on Friday 25 July 2014.
Two Community trade mark appeals head for the CJEU: do you want to have a say? Two Community trade mark appeals head for the CJEU: do you want to have a say? Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, July 18, 2014 Rating: 5

No comments:

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.