tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1493512903551080059..comments2024-03-29T09:21:58.696+00:00Comments on The IPKat: CJEU applies Louboutin, clarifying notion of ‘shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods’Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74080378639209796762019-04-24T17:32:03.559+01:002019-04-24T17:32:03.559+01:00I also agree with Peter Smith. Since the Court dec...I also agree with Peter Smith. Since the Court decided that the old version of article 7 EUTMR is applicable to the present case, then its interpretation of a "shape" is an interpretation for the old version of the text. <br /><br />Nevertheless, this ruling still gives an indication of the relatively restrictive interpretation that the Court gives to article 7 EUTMR.Kevin X.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-49451470564956636452019-03-20T14:00:51.776+00:002019-03-20T14:00:51.776+00:00Agreed. I came to the comments section to say the ...Agreed. I came to the comments section to say the same thing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20436688507094885072019-03-20T12:39:08.278+00:002019-03-20T12:39:08.278+00:00According to my understanding, the Court decided t...According to my understanding, the Court decided that the amendment of the Regulation was not retrospective, therefore the assessment had to be based on the old wording of "shape". It is not surprising that a 2D print is not a shape. For the same reason, the decision seems to give no guidance on whether the print is "another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods," which would have been much more interesting. My view is that the decorative print gives some of those goods almost their entire value so trade mark registration should be excluded.Peter Smithnoreply@blogger.com