Sociedad Agraria De Transformacion No 9982 Montecitrus v EUIPO – Spanish Oranges (Mountain Citrus Spain): ECFI 16 Mar 2017

(Intellectual, Industrial and Commercial Property : Trade Marks Intellectual, industrial and commercial property : Trade marks – Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN – Earlier EU figurative mark monteCitrus – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Identity of the goods – No similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:173,, [2017] EUECJ T-495/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581054

Capella v EUIPO – Abus (Apus): ECFI 16 Mar 2017

ECJ (Trade Marks : Trade Marks Intellectual, Industrial and Commercial Property – Judgment) European trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark APUS – Earlier national word mark ABUS – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Likelihood of confusion – Successive limitations on the application for registration before the Board of Appeal – Article 43 (1) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Jurisdiction of the Board of Appeal – Article 64 (1) Of Regulation No 207/2009 – Right to be heard – Second paragraph of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 – Rule 13 (3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:174, [2017] EUECJ T-473/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581045

Vignerons De La Mediterranee v EUIPO – Bodegas Grupo Yllera (Le Val France): ECFI 23 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment) European trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the European figurative trade mark LE VAL FRANCE – Earlier European word mark VINA DEL VAL – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-216/16, [2017] EUECJ T-216/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581057

Hoffmann v EUIPO (Genius): ECFI 22 Mar 2017

ECJ (Intellectual, Industrial and Commercial Property : Trade Marks Intellectual, Industrial and Commercial Property : Trade Marks – Judgment) European trade mark – Application for a European Genius word mark – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:199, [2017] EUECJ T-425/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581051

Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (Brent Index): ECFI 22 Mar 2017

ECJ (Intellectual, Industrial and Commercial Property : Trade Marks Intellectual, Industrial and Commercial Property : Trade Mark – Judgment) EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark BRENT INDEX – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:198, [2017] EUECJ T-430/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581053

Puma v EUIPO (Forever Faster): ECFI 9 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark FOREVER FASTER – Mark consisting of an advertising slogan – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Equal treatment – Principle of sound administration

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:153, [2017] EUECJ T-104/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580720

Rafhaelo Gutti v EUIPO – Transformados Del Sur (Camiseria La Espanola): ECFI 8 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment) European trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for a figurative European trade mark CAMISERIA LA ESPANOLA – Earlier national figurative mark representing two crossed flags – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:150, [2017] EUECJ T-504/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580721

Wessel-Werk v EUIPO – Wolf Pvg (Semelles De Suceur D’Aspirateur) T-174/16: ECFI 14 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a vacuum cleaner solessole – Previous Community design – Reason for invalidity – Individual character – Informed user – Article 6 and Article 25 (1) (B) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:161, [2017] EUECJ T-174/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580728

Wessel-Werk v EUIPO – Wolf Pvg (Semelles De Suceur D’Aspirateur) T-175/16: ECFI 14 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a vacuum cleaner solessole – Previous Community design – Reason for invalidity – Individual character – Informed user – Article 6 and Article 25 (1) (B) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:160, [2017] EUECJ T-175/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580729

Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO – Formata Boguslaw Hoba (Formata): ECFI 8 Mar 2017

(Judgment) European trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Figurative European trade mark Formata – Absolute ground for invalidity – Absence of bad faith – Article 52 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009 – Relative ground for invalidity – Likelihood of confusion – Article 53 (1) (a) and Article 8 (1) (a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:149, [2017] EUECJ T-23/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580695

Hersill v EUIPO – KCI Licensing (Vacup): ECFI 14 Mar 2017

ECJ (Intellectual, Industrial and Commercial Property : Trade Marks Intellectual, Industrial and Commercial Property : Trade Marks – Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark VACUP – Earlier EU word marks MINIVAC and V.A.C. – No genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:165, [2017] EUECJ T-741/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580707

Marsh v EUIPO (Claimsexcellence): ECFI 9 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment) European Union mark – European Union word mark application ClaimsExcellence – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7 (1) (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:154, [2017] EUECJ T-308/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580711

Johns-Manville Corporation’s Patent: CA 1967

A patent for a method of producing asbestos cement was challenged for obviousness.
Diplock LJ considered that a development should be treated as obvious if ‘the person versed in the art would assess the likelihood of success as sufficient to warrant actual trial’. However the notion of something being obvious to try was useful only in a case in which there was a fair expectation of success. He said: ‘It is enough that the person versed in the art would assess the likelihood of success as sufficient to warrant actual trial. . The Superintending Examiner and the Patents Appeal Tribunal were both of opinion that, filtration processes being common to many industries, these documents, although addressed primarily to the mining and paper industries respectively, were likely to be read by those concerned with the asbestos cement industry, and that such readers would have realised that here was a newly-introduced flocculating agent which it was well worth trying out in their own filtration process. I can see no grounds which would justify this court in reversing this concurrent finding by two expert tribunals.’ and
‘I have endeavoured to refrain from coining a definition of ‘obviousness’ which counsel may be tempted to cite in subsequent cases relating to different types of claims.’ and

‘Patent law can too easily be bedevilled by linguistics and the citation of a plethora of cases about inventions of different kinds. The correctness of a decision upon an issue of obviousness does not depend upon whether or not the decider has paraphrased the words of the Act in some particular verbal formula. I doubt whether there is any verbal formula which is appropriate to all classes of claims.’

Judges:

Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1967] RPC 479

Statutes:

Patents Act 1949

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAngiotech Pharmaceuticals and Another v Conor Medsystems Inc CA 16-Jan-2007
The appellants challenged a finding that their patent for a vascular stent failed for obviousness.
Held: To overcome a judge’s finding in such a case some error of principle had to be shown. No such error was shown and the appeal failed. . .
CitedConor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc and others HL 9-Jul-2008
The respondents had applied for and obtained an order to revoke the appellant’s patent of a stent for obvousness. Though the parties had settled, the public law element required the intervention of the Comptroller General. The House was asked about . .
CitedBrugger v Medic-Aid Ltd (No 2) ChD 1996
B alleged infringement by M of its patented nebulizer. M replied saying that the claims failed for obviousness. Features of the nebulizer were admittedly old and well known, but the claimant asserted a new mechanism which reduced the size of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.247934

The Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc and Others: ChD 13 Mar 2017

The association sought an order requiring the defendant broadband suppliers to block streaming services which operated to breach their intellectual property rights in the broadcast of football matches.

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 480 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Media

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579949

Panrico SA v EUIPO: ECJ 2 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Trade mark of the European Union – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 52 – Article 8 (1) (b) and (5) – Figurative mark with the word elements ‘krispy kreme doughnuts’ Verbal and figurative, national and international, with the elements ‘donut’, ‘donuts’ and ‘doghnuts’ – Application for a declaration of invalidity – Rejection

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:155, [2017] EUECJ C-655/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579682

Crosstown Music Company 1 Llc v Rive Droite Music Ltd and Others: CA 2 Nov 2010

Application for declaration of title to certain music copyrights.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Morgan J, Sir Paul Kennedy

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1222, [2011] 2 WLR 779, [2012] Ch 68, [2011] ECDR 5, [2011] EMLR 7, [2011] Bus LR 383, [2011] FSR 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMessager v British Broadcasting Association Co HL 1929
M composed of the music for a French opera ‘Le Petit Michus’. An English version was to be produced in London on the terms of an agreement, describing itself as a licence, between the composer and the authors of the opera, between the licensors, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.425626

Labeyrie v EUIPO – Delpeyrat (Representation D’Un Semis De Poissons Dores Sur Fond Bleu) T-766/15: ECFI 28 Feb 2017

ECJ Judgment – European trade mark – Lapse procedure – Figurative European Union mark representing a seedling of golden fish on a blue background – Declaration of lapse – Genuine use of the mark – Article 15 (1) (a) and Article 51 (1) (a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Form which differs by factors not altering the distinctive character of the goods

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:123, [2017] EUECJ T-766/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579659

Labeyrie v Euipo – Delpeyrat (Representation D’Un Semis De Poissons Clairs Sur Fond Fonce) T-767/15: ECFI 28 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) European trade mark – Lapse procedure – Figurative European Union mark representing a seedling of golden fish on a blue background – Declaration of lapse – Genuine use of the mark – Article 15 (1) (a) and Article 51 (1) (a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Form which differs by factors not altering the distinctive character of the goods

Citations:

Intellectual Property, [2017] EUECJ T-767/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579658

Ludlow Music Inc v Williams and others: ChD 2 Oct 2000

The claimant sought damages for copyright infringement in respect of two works which parodied a song to which they owned the rights.
Held: The amount copied, being as much as a quarter of the original work, meant that the claim was indefensible. When considering the grant of an injunction ‘the right approach is to start with a strong bias in favour of granting an injunction, to be dispelled only if the circumstances of the case clearly make it unjust to do so.’ This was such an exceptional case. There had been acquiescence, and the claimants were interested only in the financial and not the artistic values. An injunction was refused and an enquiry as to damages ordered.

Judges:

N Strauss QC

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 456 (Ch), [2001] EMLR 7, [2001] FSR 19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLeco Investments (UK) Ltd v Land Pyrometers CA 1982
The defendant appealed against a striking out of his defence on a claim for copyright infringement.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Leave should have been given. Whether copying was substantial depended in part on quality, which was a matter of . .
CitedChappell and Co Ltd v DC Thomson and Co ChD 1928
In a claim for copyright infringement, the lack of artistic value in a work was irrelevant. . .
CitedShelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company, Meux’s Brewery Co v Same CA 1895
The plaintiff sought damages and an injunction for nuisance by noise and vibration which was causing structural injury to a public house.
Held: The court set out the rules for when a court should not grant an injunction for an infringement of . .
CitedMCA Records Inc and Another v Charly Records Ltd and others ChD 22-Mar-2000
A licence to record is a one-off event authorising recording for the period of the licence. . .
CitedBanks v EMI Songs Ltd (No.2) ChD 1996
Jacob J referred to the judgment of AL Smith LJ in Shelfer, and granted an injunction, even though he was not able to say that a small sum of money would be adequate compensation. The ‘checklist’ in that judgment was not an exhaustive statement and . .
CitedMacMillan v Thomas Reed PatC 1993
(Patents County Court) Both parties published almanacs for yachtsmen. The plaintiff claimed copyright infringement and an injunction.
Held: An injunction was granted. Enough had been done by the plaintiff to show that in creating the work at . .
CitedPhonographic Performance Limited v Maitra and Others CA 3-Feb-1998
An injunction without time limit should normally be granted immediately where there was clear infringement and a threat of continued infringement. Copyrights can sometimes typically be identified only by reference to the trade marks under which the . .
CitedJaggard v Sawyer and Another CA 18-Jul-1994
Recovery of damages after Refusal of Injunction
The plaintiff appealed against the award of damages instead of an injunction aftter the County court had found the defendant to have trespassed on his land by a new building making use of a private right of way.
Held: The appeal failed.
CitedHogg v Kirby 15-Mar-1803
Injunction to restrain publishing a Magazine as a continuation of the Plaintiff’s Magazine in numbers, and as to communications from correspondents, received by the Defendant while publishing for the Plaintiff ; not preventing the publication of an . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromLudlow Music Inc v Williams and others (No 2) ChD 14-Feb-2002
Practice for calculation of damages after finding of copyright infringement. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.261945

Waterford Wedgwood Plc and Another v David Vagli Ltd and Another, Haughton Third Party: ChD 13 May 1998

The sellers had supplied counterfeit Waterford crystal to a buyer in New York, arranging for the goods to be shipped from Ireland to Spain and then from Spain to Felixstowe, where they were transhipped and sent to New York. The question was whether the sellers had infringed the Waterford trade mark in the United Kingdom by importing the goods into Felixstowe, and whether the English court had jurisdiction.
Held: The defendant had imported the goods into the United Kingdom. The buyer had not imported them into the United Kingdom. He had imported them into New York. The passage of the goods through Felixstowe was entirely the act of the seller and he was therefore the importer in relation to the United Kingdom. A third party claim by defendant against person domiciled in a convention country did not just because of that fall within the convention though satisfied Order 16 requirement as ‘any other third party proceedings.’

Judges:

Sir Richard Scott V-C

Citations:

Times 13-May-1998, [1998] FSR 92

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSABAF Spa (A Company Incorporated Under the Laws of Italy) v MFI Furniture Centres Limited and others; Sabaf Spa (A Company Incorporated Under the Laws of Italy) v MFI Furniture Centres Limited and others HL 14-Oct-2004
The patent holder had complained of imports of infringing items by the respondent, who in turn challenged the patent for obviousness. The Court of Appeal had rejected the rule of colocation as inconsistent with the test in Windsurfing.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.90316

Portakabin Ltd, Portakabin BV v Portakabin: ECJ 8 Jul 2010

ECJ Trade marks – Keyword advertising on the internet – Directive 89/104/EEC – Articles 5 to 7 – Display of advertisements on the basis of a keyword identical with a trade mark – Display of advertisements on the basis of keywords reproducing a trade mark with ‘minor spelling mistakes’ – Advertising for second-hand goods – Goods manufactured and placed on the market by the proprietor of the trade mark – Exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark – Affixing of labels bearing the name of the reseller and removal of labels bearing the trade mark – Advertising, on the basis of another person’s trade mark, for second-hand goods including, in addition to goods manufactured by the proprietor of the trade mark, goods from another source.

Judges:

A Tizzano, P, E. Levits, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilesic (Rapporteur) and JJ Kasel, Judges

Citations:

C-558/08, [2010] EUECJ C-558/08, [2011] CEC 552, [2010] ETMR 52

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.421319

Signature Realty Ltd v Fortis Developments Ltd and Another: ChD 17 Feb 2017

Action for infringement of copyright in the architect’s drawings which formed part of a planning consent for the development of a block of student flats in Sheffield city centre. Complaint is made of the use by the Defendants of the drawings during the promotion, marketing and construction of the development.

Judges:

John Baldwin QC

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3583 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.577847

Societa Esplosivi Industriali Spa v Ordnance Technologies (Uk) Ltd and others: ChD 5 Dec 2007

This case concerns various classes of intellectual property rights in connection with Multiple Warhead Systems.

Judges:

Lindsay J

Citations:

[2008] 2 All ER 622, [2008] Bus LR D37, [2007] EWHC 2875 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.261962

Fage UK Ltd and Another v Chobani Uk Ltd and Another: ChD 11 Dec 2012

Action for passing off – application to allow additional survey evidence

Judges:

Hildyard J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3755 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoFage UK Ltd and Another v Chobani Uk Limited and Another ChD 29-Jan-2013
Whether additional survey evidence should be admitted . .
At ChD (1)Fage UK Ltd and Another v Chobani Uk Ltd and Another ChD 26-Mar-2013
Extended passing-off case about yoghurt. The main issue was whether, by the beginning of September 2012, the phrase ‘Greek yoghurt’ had, when used in the UK marketplace, come to have attached to it a sufficient reputation and goodwill as denoting a . .
At ChD (1)Fage UK Ltd and Another v Chobani UK Ltd and Another CA 28-Jan-2014
Lewison LJ said: ‘Appellate courts have been repeatedly warned, by recent cases at the highest level, not to interfere with findings of fact by trial judges, unless compelled to do so. This applies not only to findings of primary fact, but also to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.470139

Fage UK Ltd and Another v Chobani Uk Limited and Another: ChD 29 Jan 2013

Whether additional survey evidence should be admitted

Judges:

Hildyard J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 298 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoFage UK Ltd and Another v Chobani Uk Ltd and Another ChD 11-Dec-2012
Action for passing off – application to allow additional survey evidence . .

Cited by:

At ChD (2)Fage UK Ltd and Another v Chobani Uk Ltd and Another ChD 26-Mar-2013
Extended passing-off case about yoghurt. The main issue was whether, by the beginning of September 2012, the phrase ‘Greek yoghurt’ had, when used in the UK marketplace, come to have attached to it a sufficient reputation and goodwill as denoting a . .
At ChD (2)Fage UK Ltd and Another v Chobani UK Ltd and Another CA 28-Jan-2014
Lewison LJ said: ‘Appellate courts have been repeatedly warned, by recent cases at the highest level, not to interfere with findings of fact by trial judges, unless compelled to do so. This applies not only to findings of primary fact, but also to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.471314

M I Industries v EUIPO – Natural Instinct (Natural Instinct Dog and Cat Food As Nature Intended): ECFI 15 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended – Earlier EU word marks INSTINCT and NATURE’S VARIETY – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Nature of the use – Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:77, [2017] EUECJ T-30/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575272

Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO – Antrax It (Radiateurs): ECFI 16 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Community design representing a radiator – Previous design – Reason for invalidity – Lack of individual character – Article 6 and Article 25 (1) (b) of Regulation No 6 / 2002 – Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment annulling a decision of its boards of appeal – Right to be heard – Invitation to file evidence and observations following a judgment of annulment of the Court of First Instance – Saturation of the state of art

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:91, [2017] EUECJ T-98/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575280

Unilever v EUIPO – Technopharma (Fair and Lovely): ECFI 17 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Fair and Lovely – Earlier national and Benelux word marks FAIR and LOVELY – Decision on the appeal – Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Right to be heard – Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 – Suspension of the administrative proceedings – Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Legitimate expectations – Misuse of powers – Manifest errors of assessment

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:98, [2017] EUECJ T-811/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575282

Morgese and Others v EUIPO – All Star (2 Star): ECFI 15 Feb 2017

(Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark 2 STAR – Earlier EU figurative mark ONE STAR – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:78, [2017] EUECJ T-568/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575273

Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH v Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH: ECJ 16 Feb 2017

EC (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual property – Directive 2006/115/EC – Article 8(3) – Exclusive right of broadcasting organisations – Communication to the public – Places accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee – Communication of broadcasts by TV sets installed in hotel rooms

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:131, [2017] EUECJ C-641/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575283

Batmore Capital v EUIPO – Univers Poche (Pocketbook): ECFI 17 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative trade mark POCKETBOOK – Earlier national figurative marks POCKET – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:103, [2017] EUECJ T-596/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575254

Antrax It v EUIPO – Vasco Group (Thermosiphons Pour Radiateurs): ECFI 16 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community designs representing thermosiphons for radiators – Earlier designs – Plea of unlawfulness – Article 1(d) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 – Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Principle of impartiality – Composition of the Board of Appeal – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal – Saturation of the state of the art – Date of assessment

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:87, [2017] EUECJ T-828/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575250

Jaguar Land Rover v EUIPO – Nissan Jidosha (Land Glider): ECFI 16 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Land Glider – Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks LAND ROVER – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:82, [2017] EUECJ T-71/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575268

Construlink v EUIPO – Wit-Software (Gatewit): ECFI 17 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark GATEWIT – Earlier EU figurative mark wit software – Earlier national business name Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Movel, SA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:101, [2017] EUECJ T-351/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575257

Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic Map) T-513/15: ECFI 16 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Trademark of the European Union – Trademark application of the European Verbale Limbic ‘r’ Map – Absence of descriptive character – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7 (1) (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:84, [2017] EUECJ T-513/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575260

Brandconcern v EUIPO and Scooters India: ECJ 16 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – EU trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 51(2) – Word mark LAMBRETTA – Genuine use of the mark – Application for revocation – Partial revocation – Communication No 2/12 of the President of EUIPO – Limitation of the temporal effects of a judgment of the Court

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:122, [2017] EUECJ C-577/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575255

Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbica ‘r’ Sales) T-517/15: ECFI 16 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) trademark of the European Union – Trademark application of the European Verbale Limbic ‘r’ Sales – Absence of a descriptive character – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7 (1) (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009

Citations:

T-517/15, [2017] EUECJ T-517/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575262

Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic Types) T-516/15: ECFI 16 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Trademark of the European Union – Application for the trademark of the European Verbale Limbic ‘r’ Types – Absence of descriptive character – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7 (1) (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:83, [2017] EUECJ T-516/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575261

DMC v EUIPO – Etike’ International (De Giusti Orgoglio): ECFI 16 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Trade mark of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – Application for mark of the European figurative Union De Giusti ORGOGLIO – Earlier European word mark ORGOGLIO – Relative ground for refusal – Similarity of the signs – Article 8 (1) (B) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:85, [2017] EUECJ T-18/16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575258

Hernandez Zamora v EUIPO – Rosen Tantau (Paloma): ECFI 17 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark Paloma – Earlier EU figurative mark Paloma – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:106, [2017] EUECJ T-369/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575264

Bains and Others v Moore and Others: QBD 15 Feb 2017

The claimant anti-asbestos campaigners complained that the defendant investigators had infringed their various rights of privacy. They now sought discovery to support the claim.
Held: the contents of the witness statements do show that it is more than speculative that these Claimants could, if their recollection was prompted by seeing documents, formulate a claim with a sufficient prospect of success to go forward against the Second and Third Defendants, and it is in the interests of justice that the Claimants should be released from their undertaking in terms to be settled in the form of an order, so as to permit the Claimants’ solicitors to show to these individuals documents already disclosed by the First Defendant, and to be disclosed by the Second and Third Defendants pursuant to their offer.

Judges:

Sir Michael Tugendhat

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 242 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998 13(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedIndustrial Furnaces v Reaves 1970
The plaintiffs succeeded at the trial in respect of their claim for misuse of confidential information and other claims, and their entitlement to an injunction and delivery up of material containing confidential information. In argument about the . .
CitedImerman v Tchenguiz and Others QBD 27-Jul-2009
It was said that the defendant had taken private and confidential material from the claimant’s computer. The claimant sought summary judgement for the return of materials and destruction of copies. The defendant denied that summary judgement was . .
CitedCaterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v De Crean CA 21-Feb-2012
The claimant company sought to restrain its former employee from anticipated misuse of its confidential information.
Held: Stanley Burnton LJ, in a paragraph with which the other members of the court agreed, said: ‘[counsel for the claimant] . .
CitedNottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc 1993
The court laid down tests for the granting of mandatory interim injunctions. The court should consider whether there was a high degree of confidence that the applicant would succeed in establishing his right at trial. The higher that confidence, the . .
CitedZockoll Group Limited v Mercury Communications Limited CA 8-Jul-1997
. .
CitedCream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited CA 13-Feb-2003
The defendants considered publication of alleged financial irregularities by the claimant, who sought to restrain publication. The defendants argued that under the Act, prior restraint should not be used unless a later court would be likely to . .
CitedPA Thomas and Co v Mould QBD 1968
The court urged caution in the grant of an injunction to protect information for which confidence was claimed but where that claim might not succeed. O’Connor J refused to enforce by committal an injunction restraining the defendants from making use . .
CitedRhodes v OPO and Another SC 20-May-2015
The mother sought to prevent a father from publishing a book about her child’s life. It was to contain passages she said may cause psychological harm to the 12 year old son. Mother and son lived in the USA and the family court here had no . .
CitedOPO v MLA and Another CA 9-Oct-2014
The claimant child sought to prevent publication by his father of an autobiography which, he said, would be likely to cause him psychological harm. The father was well known classical musician who said that he had himself suffered sexual abuse as a . .
CitedGreen Corns Ltd. v Claverley Group Ltd and Another QBD 18-May-2005
Whether an injunction should be granted to prevent publication of addresses for proposed homes for troubled children.
Held: The question was not whether information was generally accessible, but rather whether an injunction would serve a . .
CitedAshworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited HL 27-Jun-2002
Order for Journalist to Disclose Sources
The newspaper published details of the medical records of Ian Brady, a prisoner and patient of the applicant. The applicant sought an order requiring the defendant newspaper to disclose the identity of the source of material which appeared to have . .
CitedImutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd and Another ChD 11-Jan-2001
The test for whether an interim injunction should be granted restraining publication of material claimed to be confidential, where such a grant would infringe the right to freedom of expression was slightly different under the 1998 Act. The . .
CitedMcPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (2) CA 26-May-1999
The new Civil Procedure Rules did not change the circumstances where the Court of Appeal would interfere with a first instance decision, but would apply the new rules on that decision. Very extensive pleadings in defamation cases should now be . .
CitedOcular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd ChD 11-Nov-1996
The freedom for a claimant in registered design right to frame his claim, as to whether he asserts an infringement of the entire design, or limits it to the section infringed, is important.
Laddie J said: ‘This means that the proprietor can . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575245

Lifestyles Equities Cv and Another v Sportsdirect.Com Retail Ltd and Others: ChD 9 Feb 2017

The court considered applications for the joinder of additional defendants in trade mark infringement action.

Judges:

Master Clark

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 154 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.574096

International Gaming Projects v EUIPO – ADP Gauselmann (Triple Evolution): ECFI 9 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative EU trade mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION – Earlier EU word mark Evolution – Relative ground of refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:66, [2017] EUECJ T-82/16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573934

Bodegas Vega Sicilia v EUIPO (Tempos Vega Sicilia): ECFI 9 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Mark of the European Union – Application for verbal mark of the European Union TEMPOS VEGA SICILIA – Absolute ground for refusal – Wine mark containing geographical indications – Article 7, paragraph 1 j) of Regulation (EC) No – 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:69, [2017] EUECJ T-696/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573932

Universal Protein Supplements v EUIPO: ECJ 31 Jan 2017

ECJ (Order) Appeal – Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 181- EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Figurative mark containing the word element ‘animal’

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:95, [2017] EUECJ C-485/16 – CO

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573893

Kessel Medintim v EUIPO – Janssen-Cilag (Premeno): ECFI 3 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Trade mark of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – European Union word mark application Premeno – Earlier national word mark Pramino – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8 (1) (b) Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Decision taken following the annulment by the Court of First Instance of an earlier decision – Right to be heard – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:60, [2017] EUECJ T-509/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573897

Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO – Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffe By Julius Meinl) – T-689/15: ECFI 2 Feb 2017

(Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffe by Julius Meinl – Earlier EU figurative mark cafe crem – Relative ground for refusal – Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:50, [2017] EUECJ T-689/15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573836

Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO – Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffe By Julius Meinl) – T-687/15: ECFI 2 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffe by Julius Meinl – Earlier EU figurative mark cafe crem – Relative ground for refusal – Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:49, [2017] EUECJ T-687/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573835

Celestial Church of Christ, Edward Street Parish (A Charity) v Lawson: ChD 27 Jan 2017

The church sought inter alia orders to restrain the defendant, its former pastor, from using its name and premises.

Judges:

Hodge QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 97 (Ch), [2017] WLR(D) 55

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Trusts, Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573840

Marcas Costa Brava v Euipo – Excellent Brands Jmi (Cremcaffe) – T-690/15: ECFI 2 Feb 2017

CJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffe – Earlier EU figurative mark cafe crem – Relative ground for refusal – Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:51, [2017] EUECJ T-690/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573833

Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO – Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffe By Julius Meinl) – T-691/15: ECFI 2 Feb 2017

(Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffe by Julius Meinl – Earlier EU figurative mark cafe crem – Relative ground for refusal – Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:52, [2017] EUECJ T-691/15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/20095

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573837

Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO – Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffe By Julius Meinl) T-686/15: ECFI 2 Feb 2017

(Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffe by Julius Meinl – Earlier EU figurative mark cafe crem – Relative ground for refusal – Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:53, [2017] EUECJ T-686/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573834

Gomez Echevarria v EUIPO – M and M Direct (Wax By Yuli’s): ECFI 1 Feb 2017

(Judgment) European trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – European figurative trade mark wax by Yuli’s – Earlier word mark of the European word association MADWAX and earlier national figurative mark wax – Article 53 (1) (a) of the EC Treaty Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Scope of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal – Article 64 (1) Of Regulation No 207/2009 – Rights of the defense – Article 41 (2) (a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Abuse of right – Representation expenses before EUIPO – Article 85 (1) of Regulation No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:46, [2017] EUECJ T-19/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573827

Opko Ireland Global Holdings v EUIPO – Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Alpharen): ECFI 26 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark ALPHAREN – Earlier national word marks ALPHA D3 – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Consideration of new evidence by the Board of Appeal following a judgment annulling a decision – Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:32, [2017] EUECJ T-88/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573815

Coesia v EUIPO (Representation De Deux Courbes Rouges Oblique): ECFI 31 Jan 2017

(Judgment) Trade mark of the European Union – Application for a figurative European Union mark representing two oblique red curves – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Obligation To assess the distinctiveness of a mark in relation to the perception of it by the relevant public

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:44, [2017] EUECJ T-130/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573803

Rath v EUIPO – Portela and Ca (Diacor): ECFI 24 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark Diacor – Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings – Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:22, [2017] EUECJ T-258/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573737

Sun System Kereskedelmi Es Szolgaltato v EUIPO – Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi Es Szolgaltato (Choco Love): ECFI 25 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark Choco Love – Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks CHOCOLATE, CSOKICSO and Chocolate Brown – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:29, [2017] EUECJ T-325/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573740

Stowarzyszenie Olawska Telewizja Kablowa v Stowarzyszenie Filmowcow Polskich: ECJ 25 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2004/48 / EC – Article 13 – Intellectual and industrial property – Infringement – Calculation of damages – Regulation of a Member State – Double of the sum of royalties normally due

Citations:

C-367/15, [2017] EUECJ C-367/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573739

Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (Strong Bonds Trusted Solutions): ECFI 24 Jan 2017

ecj (Judgment) EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS. – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:23, [2017] EUECJ T-96/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573738

Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei Und Likorfabrik v EUIPO – Vina Y Bodega Botalcura (LITU): ECFI 25 Jan 2017

ECJ EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark LITU – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:30, [2017] EUECJ T-187/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573733

Quama Quality Management v EUIPO – Microchip Technology (Medialbo): ECFI 17 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) European trade mark – Opposition proceedings – European Community trade mark application medialbo – Earlier word trade mark of the European Union MediaLB – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8 (1) (B) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 41 (1) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Registration of the transfer of the trade mark – Article 17 (7) of Regulation No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:10, [2017] EUECJ T-225/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573255

Netguru v EUIPO (Netguru): ECFI 17 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Trademark of the European Union – European trademark application NETGURU – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 – Article 76 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:9, [2017] EUECJ T-54/16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property, Human Rights

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573253

Stock Polska v EUIPO – Lass and Steffen (Lubelska): ECFI 19 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark LUBELSKA – Earlier national word mark Lubeca – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Level of attention of the public – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:16, [2017] EUECJ T-701/15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573258

Morgan and Morgan v EUIPO – Grupo Morgan and Morgan (Morgan and Morgan): ECFI 19 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Morgan and Morgan – Earlier EU figurative mark MMG TRUST MIEMBRO DEL GRUPO MORGAN and MORGAN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:17, [2017] EUECJ T-399/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573251

New Wave CZ as v ALLTOYS spol. Sro: ECJ 18 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual property – Directive 2004/48/EC – Proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right – Right of information – Request for information in proceedings – Proceedings linked to the action in which an infringement of an intellectual property right has been found

Citations:

[2017] WLR(D) 29, [2017] EUECJ C-427/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:18

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Directive 2004/48/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573254

Kanal 5 and TV 4 v Foreningen Svenska Tonsattares Internationella Musikbyra: ECJ 11 Dec 2008

ECJ Competition – Copyright – Copyright management organisation enjoying a de facto monopoly – Collection of royalties relating to the broadcast of musical works – Method of calculating those royalties – Dominant position – Abuse

Citations:

[2009] ECDR 5, [2008] EUECJ C-52/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OrderKanal 5 and TV 4 v Foreningen Svenska Tonsattares Internationella Musikbyra ECJ 11-Sep-2008
ECJ (Competition) Article 82 EC Dominant position Abuse Collective copyright management body De facto monopoly Television broadcasting Method of calculation of remuneration . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Intellectual Property

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573207

Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd and Another: CA 12 Jan 2017

Judges:

Longmore, Kitchin, Floyd LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal FromFujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Company Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd and Another PatC 8-Sep-2016
The court declined to strike out a claim by FKB for a declaration that certain patents were invalid as old, or obvious, as well as for an injunction against AbbVie Bermuda and AbbVie UK to restrain them from threatening or commencing proceedings for . .
Appeal FromFujifilm Kyowa Biologics Co Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd PatC 1-Mar-2016
The court declined to strike out a claim by FKB for a declaration that products which FKB proposed to market in the United Kingdom were old or obvious. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573174

For Tune v EUIPO: ECJ 15 Jun 2017

ECJ (Appeal – EU Trade Mark : Order) Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘fortune’ – Partial rejection of the application for registration

ECLI:EU:C:2017:478, [2017] EUECJ C-23/17 – CO
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.588270

The London Taxi Corporation Ltd (T/A The London Taxi Company) v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd and Another: CA 1 Nov 2017

Is the shape of a London taxi a valid registered trade mark?
Held: ‘I would dismiss the appeal against the judge’s conclusion that the LTC trade marks were invalid for lack of distinctive character. I would also dismiss the appeal in relation to passing off.’

Kitchin, Floyd LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 1729
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.598474

Novomatic v EUIPO: ECJ 6 Dec 2016

ECJ Order – Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – EU trade mark – Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘HOT JOKER’ – Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘joker +’ – Refusal of registration

ECLI:EU:C:2016:931, [2016] EUECJ C-342/16 – CO
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572601

Pal-Bullermann v EUIPO – Symaga (Pal): ECFI 14 Dec 2016

Judgment – EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU figurative mark PAL – Partial revocation – Genuine use of the mark – Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Form differing from the registered mark – Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

T-397/15, [2016] EUECJ T-397/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572602

Redpur v EUIPO – Redwell Manufaktur (Redpur): ECFI 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – European trade mark – Opposition proceedings – European trademark application Redpur – Earlier European figurative mark redwell INFRAROT HEIZUNGEN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8 (1) (B) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:745, [2016] EUECJ T-227/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572606

Scorpio Poland v EUIPO: ECFI 14 Dec 2016

ECJ Trade mark of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – Application for the mark of the European figurative Union YO! – Earlier national word mark YO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:732, [2016] EUECJ T-745/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572608

Novartis AG v EUIPO (Representation D’Une Courbe Verte): ECFI 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – EU trade mark – Applications for EU figurative trade marks representing a grey curve and representing a green curve – Absolute ground for refusal – Distinctive character – Simplicity of the sign – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:749, [2016] EUECJ T-678/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572600

Sovena Portugal – Consumer Goods v EUIPO – Mueloliva (Fontoliva): ECFI 13 Dec 2016

Judgment – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark FONTOLIVA – Earlier national word mark FUENOLIVA – Relative ground for refusal – Validity of the registration of the earlier mark – Submission of new facts and evidence before the General Court – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Power to alter – Article 8(1)(b), Article 42(2) and (3) and Articles 65 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:726, [2016] EUECJ T-24/16
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572609

Puro Italian Style v EUIPO (Smartline): ECFI 13 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – European trade mark – European Union figurative smartline trade mark application – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7 (1) (b) of

CLI:EU:T:2016:725, [2016] EUECJ T-744/15
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 7
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572605

Keil v EUIPO – Naturafit Diatetische Lebensmittelproduktion (Basencitrate): ECFI 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – European Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – European Community word mark BasenCitrate – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7 (1) (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2016/T33015.html, [2016] EUECJ T-330/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572590

Lansforsakringar AB v Matek A/S: ECJ 21 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Mark of the European Union – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 9 (1) (b) – Article 15 (1) – Article 51 (1) (a) – Scope Granted to the holder – Five-year period subsequent to registration

C-654/15, [2016] EUECJ C-654/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572591

Market Watch Franchise and Consulting v EUIPO: ECJ 1 Dec 2016

ECJ Order – Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the word mark MITOCHRON – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 8(1)(b)

ECLI:EU:C:2016:924, [2016] EUECJ C-402/16 – CO
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572594