OHIM and national trade mark offices introduce common practice on the interpretation of black and white trade marks

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 877-878
Author(s):  
L. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Black And White ◽  
National Trade

scholarly journals AMS Neve and Others (C-172/18): Looking for a Greater ‘Degree of Consistency’ Between the Special Jurisdiction Rule for EU Trade Marks and National Trade Marks

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-364
Author(s):  
Lydia Lundstedt
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Electronic Display ◽  
Special Rules ◽  
The Right ◽  
National Trade ◽  
Jurisdiction Rule

Abstract The Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) judgment in AMS Neve and others (C-172/18) clarifies how to interpret the concept ‘the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed or threatened’ in the rule on special jurisdiction in the European Union Trade Mark Regulation. The CJEU held that Art. 125(5) should be interpreted to mean that the right holder may bring an action before an EU trade mark court of the Member State within which the consumers or traders to whom advertising and offers for sale are directed are located, even if the defendant took decisions and steps in another Member State to bring about that electronic display. With this judgment the CJEU introduces a targeting approach, which is something it has declined to do for the corresponding rule in Art. 7(2) Brussels Recast that applies to infringements of national trade marks. While the targeting approach is encouraging, the CJEU will need to clarify it to fulfil the objective of legal certainty. In addition, the CJEU appears to have interpreted Art. 125(5) EUTMR to exclude the Member State of activation. This is in contrast to Art. 7(2) Brussels Recast, which gives a right holder a choice between the Member State of activation and the Member State where the trade mark is registered. The article concludes that there is no justification for these differences in the special rules on jurisdiction applicable to EU trade marks and national trades.

Four Dimensions of Diamond T: Combination Trade Marks of Colours And Shapes

2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 583
Author(s):  
Michael McGowan
Keyword(s):  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Fourth Dimension ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Four Dimensions ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
Dimensional Shape ◽  
Three Dimensional Shape

This article examines the relatively new fields of colour and shape trade marks. It was initially feared by some academics that the new marks would encroach on the realms of patent and copyright.  However, the traditional requirements of trade mark law, such as functionality and descriptiveness, have meant that trade marks in colour and shape are extremely hard to acquire if they do not have factual distinctiveness. As colour and shape trade marks have no special restrictions, it is proposed that the combination trade mark theory and analysis from the Diamond T case should be used as a way to make them more accessible. The combination analysis can be easily applied because every product has a three dimensional shape and a fourth dimension of colour.

Relationship Between Geographical Indications and Trade Marks under Turkish Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ufuk Tekin
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Geographical Indication ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
International Regulations ◽  
First Time

Abstract While geographical indications show geographical origin, trade marks show commercial origin. Therefore, it is possible to say that both geographical indications and trade marks have distinctive character. Indeed, when an application is filed to register a geographical indication as a trade mark, an important question is whether the sign is distinctive enough. In such cases, the distinctive character of these commercial and geographical ‘signs’ can overlap and intersect with each other. In this article, the intersection and relationship between geographical indications and trade marks will be evaluated by considering two different scenarios. In the first one, the trade mark application precedes the registration of the geographical indication, while in the second the application for the geographical indication is filed before the conflicting trade mark. The analysis is carried out by taking into account various provisions of theTurkish Industrial Property Code (IPC), the judicial practice of the Turkish Court of Cassation and international regulations. In this context, the relationship between several absolute grounds for refusal in such a situation and which of these provisions is the most applicable will be examined. In particular, an attempt will be made to explain the role of the absolute ground for refusal regulated in the new Turkish Industrial Property Code for the first time, namely that signs containing or consisting of a geographical indication cannot be registered as a trade mark (Art. 5.1(i)).

FITNESS LEISURE LTD’S TRADE MARK APPLICATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 136 (10) ◽  
pp. 605-617
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion

Abstract H1 Trade marks – Opposition proceedings – Procedure – Failure to consider all grounds advanced by the opponent – Earlier marks – Assessment of likelihood of confusion – Appeal to Appointed Person

Assessing Likelihood of Confusion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilanah Fhima ◽  
Dev S. Gangjee
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
The Public ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
Essential Function ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

The likelihood of confusion test is inextricably linked to the principal justification for trade mark protection. If the essential function of a trade mark is to reliably indicate the commercial origin of a product in the marketplace, an action to prevent confusion amongst consumers, thereby impeding this origin indicating ability, is a necessary corollary. The language of Article 5(1)(b) (relative grounds) and Article 10(2)(b) (infringement) of the Trade Marks Directive 2015 (TMD 2015) indicates that the proprietor has the right to prevent a junior user from registering or using a mark where ‘because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark’.

13. Infringement and loss of registration of trade marks

2019 ◽  
pp. 290-319
Author(s):  
Stavroula Karapapa ◽  
Luke McDonagh
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement ◽  
Scope Of Protection

This chapter focuses on trade mark infringement, setting out the rights of a trade mark owner to prevent others from making use of any sign which is the same as or similar to the registered mark in the course of trade. A claimant who brings a trade mark infringement action will have to show two things: that an act of infringement has been committed, and that such conduct falls within the scope of protection afforded to the registered mark. Once these two points have been established, the court will normally find in favour of the claimant unless one or more of the counter-arguments raised by the defendant succeeds. A defendant who is sued for trade mark infringement, besides denying that infringement has been made out or raising one of the statutory defences, will usually try to counterclaim that the mark should be revoked or declared invalid.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document