tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6610940243861318818..comments2024-03-29T09:21:58.696+00:00Comments on The IPKat: General Court stifles Steiff's button CTMsVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91367075068232914642014-01-20T06:52:38.651+00:002014-01-20T06:52:38.651+00:00Not regarded as an indicator of trade origin by co...Not regarded as an indicator of trade origin by consumers (?) I guess the judges aren't fans of Antique Roadshow!! <br /><br />Proud owner of a moose with a button!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28858961684806930872014-01-18T19:05:27.670+00:002014-01-18T19:05:27.670+00:00Although a button and fabric label are normal comp...Although a button and fabric label are normal components of cuddly toys, they way in which they are fastened to the toy's ear isn't a common/descriptive feature of a toy. Normally the ear is where the trader might attach a security tag. Also, does a TM need to be dissociated from a goods to act as an indicator of origin-what about the red sole of the Louboutin shoe? Seems to be more of a policy decision behind this, by preventing one trader from getting a monopoly over something which could be adopted by other traders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53885091119644354262014-01-17T18:36:32.480+00:002014-01-17T18:36:32.480+00:00Had they put in evidence of acquired distinctivene...Had they put in evidence of acquired distinctiveness or were they vainly hoping it would have inherent distinctiveness. If the latter then I agreeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-16553275554320156262014-01-17T18:22:01.918+00:002014-01-17T18:22:01.918+00:00Decisions like this make the court appear to be to...Decisions like this make the court appear to be totally out of touch with the real world. Of course "Knopf in Ohr" has been iconic for generations. I can only put the result down to inefficient attorneys. They ought to have proven the obvious: the uniqueness of Steiff's approach. I cringe when I think that perhaps even a Salamander with boots may not be protectable as a 3D trademark. Oh, Lurchi!<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br /><br />George Brock-NannestadAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74645185948631541742014-01-17T17:07:21.172+00:002014-01-17T17:07:21.172+00:00Has worked as a trade mark in Germany since 1904, ...Has worked as a trade mark in Germany since 1904, but clearly not for the GC. Off the CJEU I say!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-70979499552849759162014-01-17T16:03:36.790+00:002014-01-17T16:03:36.790+00:00Maybe it's the distinctive colour of the label...Maybe it's the distinctive colour of the label and the word "Steiff" on it that functions as a trade mark, rather than the mere fixing of the label to the toy's ear with a metal button.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com