tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1453681550576399748..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: CJEU upholds duty to reverse-engineer trade marks in Rubik's cube decision, but what about the actual v abstract test?Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-82592524876249290032016-11-11T16:57:57.057+00:002016-11-11T16:57:57.057+00:00Surely given the existence of variants such as the...Surely given the existence of variants such as the Rubiks sphere that have a similar internal mechanism, the claimed external shape is not solely a function of the internal mechanism. It should have been a slam dunk win for Rubiks.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-13412860301695365692016-11-10T16:39:55.453+00:002016-11-10T16:39:55.453+00:00Presumably the trade mark have been found to be va...Presumably the trade mark have been found to be valid if it specifically disclaimed three-dimensional puzzles with rotating capability? Of course Rubik don't sell any such puzzles and don't want protection for those puzzles. They want an unjustifiable perpetual monopoly on their three-dimensional rotating puzzle, of which every single feature has a technical function.<br /><br />Three-dimensional rotating puzzles fall within the specification of goods of the relevant trade mark registration. Every feature of a three-dimensional rotating puzzle having the appearance of the trade mark registration has a technical function. As such, the trade mark cannot be valid for at least one good that falls within the specification of goods. Therefore, the registration is not valid for those goods.<br /><br />I'm amazed this got all the way to the CJEU. It seems blindingly obvious. Maybe I'm missing something.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91428245841972759032016-11-10T15:21:33.677+00:002016-11-10T15:21:33.677+00:00I am more into patents than trademarks, but nevert...I am more into patents than trademarks, but nevertheless I am very surprised by the reasoning of the CJEU. In particular ' cannot preclude account from being taken of the technical function of the actual goods represented by the sign' <br /><br />Hang on... a trade mark is for stopping others selling a product having this trade mark. The fact that the trade mark holder sells a product which appears to fit the trade mark is legally of no relevance, is a mere coincidence.<br /><br />And even if it would be relevant, such an actually traded product is a mere specimen from the group of products covered by the trademark. It seems a logical error to transpose the (hidden) properties of this specimen to the entire group. <br /><br />Or am I now blinded by arguments from the patents field?Kuifjenoreply@blogger.com