A case had been referred to the court as to the interpetation of the articles in the Directive. The court replied asking whether the subsequent Ansul judgement answered the questions raised.
Held: By agreement with the parties, only one of the questions was answered, and four remained. The court requested the European court to continue.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Jacob
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 1382 (Ch)
Links:
Statutes:
Trade Marks Directive (89/104) 10(1) 12(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ansul (Judgment) ECJ 11-Mar-2003
Europa Trade marks – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 12(1) – Revocation of trade mark owner’s rights – Concept of genuine use of a trade mark – Maintenance of goods already sold and sales of replacement parts and . .
See Also – UK Registered Trade Marks Nos 1338514 (in Class 5) and 1402537 (in Class 3) in the name of Laboratories Goemar SA and Applications for Revocation thereof Nos 10073 and 10074 by La Mer Technology Inc ChD 19-Dec-2001
The applicants sought revocation of the defendant’s trade marks on the grounds that they had not been implemented after five years. It was sensible to go straight from the Directive, rather than the Act which implemented it. The onus was on the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Future Publishing Ltd v The Edge Interactive Media Inc and Others ChD 13-Jun-2011
The claimant said that the defendant had infriged its rights by the use of its logo on their publications. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.183767
