Around the IP Blogs

Trade marks

The Fashion Law Blog published a follow-up concerning the Puma vs Nike battle over Nike’s trade mark application for ‘footware’. After having opposed the Nike’s application in the US for being generic and descriptive, Puma has now withdrawn its opposition. Nike’s application for registration is also pending in several other countries, including Canada, Australia, and India.

Kluwer Trademark Blog commented on the judgment in case T-368/20, concerning the registration of a work mark ‘MILEY CYRUS’ as EUTM. The General Court annulled an earlier decision of the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal in opposition proceedings, filed by an earlier figurative mark ‘CYRUS’. The Court held that the two signs are different and there is no likelihood of confusion.


The Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (CITMA), together with Bird&Bird, have selected the most interesting recent design cases from EU Member States. The overview covers national case law from Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Poland, and the Netherlands.


The recent decision of the German Constitutional Court concerning the constitutionality of the UPC has attracted wide commentary in the the patent blogosphere [see, e.g., IPKat posts here and earlier here]. Juve Patent has now featured an opinion piece concerning the (uncertain) future of the UPC.


If you are in search of ideas for summer reading, Book Authority prepared a list of 21 best new intellectual property books. Some have already been reviewed by IPKat: see here, here, here and here.
Around the IP Blogs Around the IP Blogs Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko on Friday, July 30, 2021 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.