tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3753298353949394687..comments2024-03-28T09:05:22.006+00:00Comments on The IPKat: ECJ functionality decisionVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-64819269994567064842007-09-24T16:07:00.000+01:002007-09-24T16:07:00.000+01:00The trademarks of G-Star were filed a shape marks....The trademarks of G-Star were filed a shape marks....says an anonymous Dutch reader.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28158168642578034532007-09-24T12:08:00.000+01:002007-09-24T12:08:00.000+01:00Sorry I don't see that. The exclusion relates to ...Sorry I don't see that. The exclusion relates to signs which consist exclusively of a shape giving substantial value to the goods (in the English version). If that 'value' is as a brand then I don't see how the exclusion can work ? <BR/><BR/>I do think there is an issue of divergent EU wide interpretations of the word 'shape', but that's another issue.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, Jeremy's colleague, don't fret too much. Do like the rest of us do - ignore the ECJ !!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35674509687555308122007-09-24T09:21:00.000+01:002007-09-24T09:21:00.000+01:00A colleague who opts for anonymity has emailed the...A colleague who opts for anonymity has emailed the IPKat aquick comment on this case: "It appears to be a consequence of the judgment that where a distinctive but not attractive shape, which is for argument's sake inherently registrable, becomes attractive due to its function as identifying a trendy brand, it actually becomes less registrable because Art 3(1)(e) kicks in. Furthermore, since 3(3) does not apply it has lost its registrability for good (unless the brand recognition collapses). Seems to me this is true to the letter but contrary to the spirit of the Directive?".Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53663932068134035482007-09-21T08:28:00.001+01:002007-09-21T08:28:00.001+01:00Didn't notice any argument over whether it was a s...Didn't notice any argument over whether it was a shape mark. Perhaps it happened at the lower stages, because the referred questions assumed it was a shape mark. Can any Dutch readers advise?Ilanahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04769375670713505896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1330974758938797012007-09-20T20:49:00.000+01:002007-09-20T20:49:00.000+01:00Yes exactly. What would the UK have done ? Not t...Yes exactly. What would the UK have done ? Not treated it as a shape mark in the first place is the answer. Thus the most likely outcome would have refusal on non-distinctiveness grounds.<BR/><BR/>Art 3(1)(e) is and remains elusive and uncertain in scope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-17336181203289558102007-09-20T14:06:00.000+01:002007-09-20T14:06:00.000+01:00Indeed - they seem to have missed the point. Art ...Indeed - they seem to have missed the point. Art 3(3) is an exception to refusal on the basis of non-distinctiveness/descriptiveness.. however, the argument here was whether the "substantial value" created by the shape mark was created not through its value as a design but rather because it had come to signify G-Star.<BR/><BR/>Any argument whether it was a shape mark?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com