tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2760839745530272566..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: If you like the smell of L'Oréal, you'll just love the ECJ reference ...Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4361388686975961632007-10-12T18:38:00.000+01:002007-10-12T18:38:00.000+01:00Very tactfully put, Ilanah! Yes, I do blame our me...Very tactfully put, Ilanah! Yes, I do blame our membership of the EU - and indeed voted against this membership in the last two general elections, though clearly to not much effect as yet. But I can still be annoyed when I see our law being overruled in this way, even where there are interesting IP issues as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74359142199263840932007-10-12T09:18:00.000+01:002007-10-12T09:18:00.000+01:00I think this misses the point. Our Trade Marks Act...I think this misses the point. Our Trade Marks Act implements a European Directive. Where the meaning of provisions of European Directives is unclear, a reference to the ECJ is unnecessary. If that situation is undesireable then blame our membership of the EU, not trade mark law.Ilanahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04769375670713505896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88262223261363949652007-10-11T21:36:00.000+01:002007-10-11T21:36:00.000+01:00I don't like this sort of thing, which is an affro...I don't like this sort of thing, which is an affront to Parliamentary Sovereignty. We have a perfectly good Trade Marks Act which says whether or not you are allowed to use someone else's trade mark to identify their goods. Why should we have to go cap in hand to Europe to get an answer to this question, and why isn't the question whether the use is legal under our law, rather than whether the use is legal under what Europe would like our law to be?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88423941279527574332007-10-11T17:02:00.000+01:002007-10-11T17:02:00.000+01:00I guess its just semantics but interesting to refe...I guess its just semantics but interesting to refer back to Aldous in the Aresnal case<BR/><BR/>"I realise that there was no appeal on the conclusion reached by the judge on the cause of action traditionally called passing off, perhaps best referred to as unfair competition. ... The traditional form of passing off .....no longer definitive of the ambit of the cause of action."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-6879482598925435152007-10-11T15:37:00.000+01:002007-10-11T15:37:00.000+01:00I agree with the comment above by Anonymous - bu...I agree with the comment above by Anonymous - but this must be the first time ever that Sir Robin has expressed his sentiments under cover of anonymity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28392576307790206742007-10-11T13:58:00.000+01:002007-10-11T13:58:00.000+01:00I'm glad you two are excited. Surely by now you'll...I'm glad you two are excited. <BR/><BR/>Surely by now you'll have realised however that the ECJ specialises in complete anticlimax. Either they don't answer the questions, or they give bland responses and send the juicy bits back to be decided under national law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31612424193809066782007-10-11T10:12:00.000+01:002007-10-11T10:12:00.000+01:00For me the most exciting part of this case is Jaco...For me the most exciting part of this case is Jacob LJ's suggestion that the defendant's get up might count as a 'parody', and therefore benefit from the parody defence in the US Trademark Dilution Revision Act 2006.Ilanahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04769375670713505896noreply@blogger.com