Tag: Intellectual Property

Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering): CACD 20 Nov 2002

The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to statutory exceptions. To place a legal (persuasive) burden of proof on the defendant is possible under statute, but is exceptional, and requires clear words. Here, parliament had used the word ‘prove’ rather than ‘show’ in describing the burden on the defendant to establish a defence. The defence did not allege dishonesty. Having regard not only to the interests of the accused and the public, the imposition of legal burden on the accused, in the section is necessary, justified and proportionate. There is a heavy burden on those justifying a reverse legal burden of proof, but that burden was discharged here.

Rose LJ, Hughes, Davis JJ
Times 02-Dec-2002, Gazette 06-Feb-2003, [2002] EWCA Crim 2558, [2003] UKHRR 328, [2003] 1 Cr App R 35
Bailii
Trade Marks Act 1994 92(5) 94, European Convention on Human Rights 6.2
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering) CACD 20-Nov-2002
The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to . .
Doubted – Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering) CACD 20-Nov-2002
The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Barnfather v London Borough of Islington Education Authority, Secretary of State for Education and Skills QBD 7-Mar-2003
The appellant was convicted of the crime of being a parent whose child had failed to attend school regularly. She challenged saying that the offence required no guilty act on her part, but was one of strict liability, and contrary to her human . .
Cited – Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering) CACD 20-Nov-2002
The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to . .
Doubted – Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering) CACD 20-Nov-2002
The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to . .
Cited – Regina v Johnstone HL 22-May-2003
The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act . .
Cited – Essex Trading Standards v Singh Admn 3-Mar-2009
The defendant had been accused of selling counterfeit trainer shoes. The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of the prosecution on the basis that the defenant had not known that they were counterfeit.
Held: The onus of proof lay on the . .
Cited – Shepherd v The Information Commissioner CACD 18-Jan-2019
The defendant had been part of an organisation subject to an investigation of child sex abuse. He was cleared of involvement, but had disseminated the confidential reports containing sensitive personal data to support his contention that the process . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.178305

EUIPO v Grau Ferrer: ECJ 21 Jul 2016

(Judgment) Appeal – EU trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 76(2) – Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Rule 50(1), third subparagraph – Figurative mark – Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier trade mark – Proof of the existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier trade mark – Consideration by the Board of Appeal of evidence submitted out of time – Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal

C-597/14, [2016] EUECJ C-597/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:579
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567409

Ogrodnik v EUIPO – Aviario Tropical (Tropical): ECFI 21 Jul 2016

(Judgment) EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark Tropical – Earlier national word mark TROPICAL – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Extent of the applicant’s rights under national law – Coexistence of the marks – Obligation to state reasons – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

T-804/14, [2016] EUECJ T-804/14
Bailii
Regulation No 207/2009 75

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567415

Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO: ECJ 21 Jul 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark English pink – Opposition by the proprietor of the word mark PINK LADY and the figurative marks including the word elements ‘Pink Lady’ – Opposition dismissed – Decision of an EU trade mark court – Alteration – Res judicata

ECLI:EU:C:2016:582, [2016] EUECJ C-226/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567400

Volkswagen v EUIPO (Connectedwork): ECFI 14 Jul 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Mark of the European Union – Application for verbal mark of the European Union ConnectedWork – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7, paragraph 1 b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009 – Obligation to state reason

ECLI:EU:T:2016:407, [2016] EUECJ T-491/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566912

Monster Energy v EUIPO – Mad Catz Interactive (Representation D’Un Carrae Noir Avec Quatre Lignes Blanches): ECFI 14 Jul 2016

(Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark representing a black square with four white lines – Earlier EU figurative mark representing three claws positioned vertically – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:408, [2016] EUECJ T-567/15
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566902

Monster Energy v EUIPO – Mad Catz Interactive (Mad Catz): ECFI 14 Jul 2016

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark MAD CATZ – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:409, [2016] EUECJ T-429/15
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566901

Preferisco Foods v EUIPO – Piccardo and Savore (Preferisco): ECFI 14 Jul 2016

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark PREFERISCO – Earlier EU word mark I PREFERITI – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:414, [2016] EUECJ T-371/15
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566905

Fruit of The Loom v EUIPO – Takko (Fruit): ECFI 7 Jul 2016

(Judgment) EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark FRUIT – Genuine use of a mark – Article 15 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – External use of the mark

ECLI:EU:T:2016:395, [2016] EUECJ T-431/15
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566725

Copernicus-Trademarks v EUIPO – Maquet (Luceo): ECFI 7 Jul 2016

ECJ (Judgment) European Union trade mark – Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity – European Union word mark LUCEO – Absolute ground for refusal – Bad faith during the filing of the application for registration – Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

G. Berardis, P
ECLI:EU:T:2016:396, [2016] EUECJ T-82/14
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 52(1)(b)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566724

Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Muller and Co Margarine: HL 1901

The House considered the liability, or not, to stamp duty of an agreement made in the UK. Under the Stamp Act 1891 an agreement made in the UK for the sale of any estate or interest in any property except lands or property locally situate out of the UK was chargeable with ad valorem stamp duty. The particular agreement was for the sale of the premises of a wholesale manufacturing business which was carried on in Germany together with the goodwill of the business, all of whose customers were in Germany.
Held: The goodwill was property locally situate outside the UK.
Lord Macnaghten said: ‘It is very difficult, as it seems to me, to say that goodwill is not property. Goodwill is bought and sold every day. It may be acquired, I think, in any of the different ways in which property is usually acquired. When a man has got it he may keep it as his own. He may vindicate his exclusive right to it if necessary by process of law. He may dispose of it if he will – of course under the conditions attaching to property of that nature.’ and
‘What is goodwill? It is a thing very easy to describe, very difficult to define. It is the benefit and advantage of a good name, reputation, and connection of business. It is the attractive force which brings in custom. It is the one thing which distinguishes an old established business from a new business at its first start. The goodwill of a business must emanate from a particular centre or source. However widely extended or diffused its influence may be, goodwill is worth nothing unless it has a power of attraction sufficient to bring customers home to the source from which it emanates. Goodwill is composed of a variety of elements. It differs in its composition in different trades and in different businesses in the same trade.’
Lord Lindley said: ‘Goodwill regarded as property has no meaning except in connection with some trade, business, or calling. In that connection, I understand the word to include whatever adds value to the business by reason of the situation, name and reputation, connection, introduction to old customers, and agreed absence from competition, or any of these things, and there may be others which do not occur to me. In this wide sense, goodwill is inseparable from the business to which it adds value, and, in my opinion, exists where the business is carried on. Such business may be carried on in one place or country or in several, and if in several there may be several businesses, each having a goodwill of its own.’
Lord Robertson said: ‘I do not accede to the view that the goodwill is affixed or attached to the manufactory. Supposing that the products of the manufactory were all exported to England and sold to English customers, I should find it difficult to hold that the goodwill was out of England merely because the manufactory was. The application of the words ‘locally situate’ would then present a different question, requiring, I should think, a different answer. Again, if the facts as to the distribution of the products were more complicated, as, for example, if the trade were diffused over England and other countries, then the location of the goodwill would be a more complex, although I do not by any means think an insoluble, problem.
I confess I find no repugnancy in affirming of the goodwill of a business that it is locally situate somewhere. It is, I should say, locally situate within the geographical limits which comprehend the seat of the trade, and the trade. That sounds like a very cautious statement, and fortunately it is enough for the present question. It seems to me that in the statute the distinction drawn is between what from a British point of view we should call British property and foreign property; and the goodwill of a business which begins and ends abroad is, I think, property locally situate outside the United Kingdom.’

Lord Macnaghten, Lord Lindley, Lord Robertson
[1901] AC 217
Stamp Act 1891
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Condliffe and Another v Sheingold CA 31-Oct-2007
The defendant had taken an assignment of the goodwill of a restaurant from the company of which she was a director. The plaintiffs as assignees of any claims of the company, now in liquidation, said that she was liable to account to them for the . .
Cited – Hotel Cipriani Srl and Others v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd and Others CA 24-Feb-2010
The claimants owned Community and UK trade marks in the name ‘Cipriani’. The defendants operated a restaurant in London using, under the licence of another defendant, the same name. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent further use of the . .
Cited – The Athletes’ Foot Marketing Associates Inc v Cobra Sports Ltd ChD 1980
The plaintiff, which carried on a retail shoe franchising business mainly in the United States, had prospective franchisee in England but had not commenced trading there. There was an awareness in England of the plaintiff’s trade name and activities . .
Cited – Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked whether, as the appellants contended, a claimant who is seeking to maintain an action in passing off need only establish a reputation among a significant section of the public within the jurisdiction, or whether, as the courts . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Intellectual Property, Stamp Duty

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.260189

Mozzetti v EUIPO – Di Lelio (Alfredo’s Gallery Alla Scrofa Roma): ECFI 6 Jul 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Mark of the European Union – Invalidity proceedings – the figurative mark EU ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma – Earlier national word mark THE ORIGINAL ALFREDO – Request for proof of use – Article 57, paragraph 2 of Regulation ( EC) No 207/2009 – relative ground for refusal – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation No 207/2009

ECLI: EU:T:2016:393, [2016] EUECJ T-97/15
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566590

Mozzetti v EUIPO – Di Lelio (Alfredo Alla Scrofa): ECFI 6 Jul 2016

ECJ Judgment – Mark of the European Union – Invalidity proceedings – the figurative mark EU Alfredo alla Scrofa – Earlier national word mark THE ORIGINAL ALFREDO – Request for proof of use – Article 57, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – relative ground for refusal – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation No 207/2009

ECLI: EU: T: 2016 394, [2016] EUECJ T-96/15
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566589

Petraitis v Commission: ECFI 18 Dec 2015

ECJ (Order) Action for annulment – Community trade mark – Time for appealing – Starting point – Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal on electronic account with OHIM representative of the applicant – Out of time – No force majeure or fortuitous event – manifest inadmissibility

T-850/14, [2015] EUECJ T-850/14 – CO
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565748

Monster Energy v EUIPO (Green Beans): ECFI 8 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark GREEN BEANS – Application for restitutio in integrum – Non-compliance with the time limit for bringing an action before the General Court

ECLI:EU:T:2016:339, [2016] EUECJ T-585/15
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565623

Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen v Euipo – Meissen Keramik (Meissen): ECFI 14 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Brand of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – trade mark of the figurative EU MEISSEN – Brands of the earlier word and figurative national and European Union MEISSEN, Meissener PORZELLAN, HAUS MEISSEN, Meissen and Meissener Porzellan – Reasons related for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – distinctive character and reputation of the earlier marks – Article 8, paragraph 5 of Regulation No 207 / 2009 – Genuine use of the earlier marks – Article 42, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Regulation No 207/2009 – Article 15, paragraph 1 of Regulation No 207/2009

T-789/14, [2016] EUECJ T-789/14, ECLI:EU:T:2016:349
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565635

Hansson v Jungpflanzen Grunewald GmbH: ECJ 9 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual and industrial property – Community plant variety rights – Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 – Infringement – Reasonable compensation – Compensation for damage – Costs of proceedings and out-of-court expenses

ECLI:EU:C:2016:419, C-481/14, [2016] EUECJ C-481/14
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565611

Monster Energy v EUIPO (Representation D’Un Symbole de paix): ECFI 8 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Application for an EU figurative mark representing a peace symbol – Application for restitutio in integrum – Non-compliance with the time limit for bringing an action before the General Court)

ECLI:EU:T:2016:338, [2016] EUECJ T-583/15
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565624

Egeda and Others v Administracion del Estado and Others: ECJ 9 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual and industrial property – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29/EC – Article 5(2)(b) – Reproduction right – Exceptions and limitations – Private copying – Fair compensation – Financing from the General State Budget – Whether permissible – Conditions

ECLI:EU:C:2016:418, [2016] EUECJ C-470/14
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565603

Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association v Council: ECFI 9 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual and industrial property – Community plant variety rights – Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 – Infringement – Reasonable compensation – Compensation for damage – Costs of proceedings and out-of-court expenses

T-276/13, [2016] EUECJ T-276/13
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565610

Staywell Hospitality Group v EUIPO – Sheraton International IP (Park Regis): ECFI 2 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) European Union trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for European Union figurative mark PARK REGIS – Earlier European Union figurative mark ST. REGIS – Partial refusal to register – Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

T-510/14, [2016] EUECJ T-510/14
Bailii
European

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564970

Sfera Joven v EUIPO – Las Banderas Del Mediterraineo (Noosfera): ECFI 26 May 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Brand of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – Brand verbal EU NOOSFERA – Earlier national word and figurative marks SFERA sfera Sfera colors and CENTROS – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

T-99/15, [2016] EUECJ T-99/15, ECLI:EU:T:2016:321
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564897

El Corte Ingles v EUIPO – Grup Supeco Maxor (Supeco): ECFI 24 May 2016

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Supeco – Earlier EU figurative mark SUPER COR – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal – Goods and services on which the opposition is based – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Rule 15(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Communication No 2/12

T-126/15, [2016] EUECJ T-126/15
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564873

Bimbo v EUIPO (The Snack Company): ECFI 26 May 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Mark of the European Union – trade mark of the figurative European Union THE SNACK COMPANY – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7, paragraph 1 b) and c) and paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Equal treatment – Obligation to state reasons – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

T-331/15, [2016] EUECJ T-331/15, ECLI:EU:T:2016:323
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564868

Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO – Dyado Liben (Casale Fresco): ECFI 26 May 2016

(Judgment) Brand of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – trade mark of verbal EU Casale Fresco – Brand of the prior oral EU FREZCO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

T-254/15, [2016] EUECJ T-254/15, ECLI:EU:T:2016:319
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564867

Market Watch v EUIPO – Glaxo Group (Mitochron): ECFI 13 May 2016

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark MITOCHRON – Earlier national word mark MIVACRON – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

T-312/15, [2016] EUECJ T-312/15, ECLI:EU:T:2016:303
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564332

Market Watch v EUIPO – El Corte Ingles (Mitochron): ECFI 13 May 2016

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

T-62/15, [2016] EUECJ T-62/15, ECLI:EU:T:2016:304
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564331

Red Lemon v EUIPO – Lidl Stiftung (Abtronic): ECFI 12 May 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Brand of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – trade mark of the figurative EU Abtronic – Brand of the prior oral EU TRONIC – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of the Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – minimum inherent distinctive character of the earlier mark – Likelihood of confusion

T-775/14, [2016] EUECJ T-775/14, ECLI:EU:T:2016:293
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.563408

Red Lemon v EUIPO – Lidl Stiftung (Abtronicx2): ECFI 12 May 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Brand of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – trade mark of the figurative EU AbTronicX2 – Brand of the prior oral EU TRONIC – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of the Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – minimum inherent distinctive character of the earlier mark – Likelihood of confusion

T-776/14, [2016] EUECJ T-776/14, ECLI:EU:T:2016:291
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.563409

GRE v EUIPO (Mark1) T-844/14: ECFI 12 May 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Mark of the European Union – Application for verbal mark of the European Union Mark1 – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

[2016] EUECJ T-844/14, ECLI:EU:T:2016:289
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.563398

Ivo-Kermartin v EUIPO – Ergo Versicherungsgruppe (ELGO): ECFI 12 May 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Brand of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – Application for verbal mark of the European Union ELGO – Brands of the earlier word and figurative EU ERGO – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Likelihood of confusion – successive Limitations registration – Article 43, paragraph 1 of Regulation No 207/2009 – Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207 / 2009 – Right to be heard – Rule 69 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

T-750/14, [2016] EUECJ T-750/14, ECLI:EU:T:2016:290
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.563402

Mobile.International v EUIPO – Rezon (Mobile.De): ECFI 12 May 2016

EJ (Judgment) Mark of the European Union – Invalidity proceedings – Marks of verbal and figurative EU mobile.de – mobile Earlier national figurative mark – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 15, paragraph 1, article 57, paragraph 2 and Article 76, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Rule 40, paragraph 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

T-322/14, [2016] EUECJ T-322/14
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.563405

Zuffa v EUIPO (Ultimate Fighting Championship): ECFI 12 May 2016

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Descriptiveness – Distinctive character acquired through use – Obligation to state reasons – Relevant public – Article 7(1)(b) and (c), (2) and (3) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

T-590/14, [2016] EUECJ T-590/14, ECLI:EU:T:2016:295
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.563412

Matratzen Concord v EUIPO (Order) French Text: ECJ 28 Apr 2016

ECJ Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure – Mark of the European Union – Word mark Matratzen Concord – Relative ground for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark MATRATZEN – Likelihood of confusion – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) – partial refusal of registration – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Article 42, paragraph 2

ECLI:EU:C:2016:314, [2016] EUECJ C-35/16 – CO
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.563389

Chung-Yuan Chang v EUIPO – Bsh Hausgerate (Aroma): ECFI 12 May 2016

EWCJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark AROMA – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

T-749/14, [2016] EUECJ T-749/14, ECLI:EU:T:2016:286
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.563394

Prince Albert v Strange: ChD 8 Feb 1849

The Prince sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and lists of works by Queen Victoria. The etchings appeared to have been removed surreptitiously from or by one Brown. A personal confidence was claimed.
Held: The jurisdiction in confidence is based not so much on property or on contract as on a duty of good faith. In granting an injunction restraining the publication of the catalogue containing descriptions of etchings, the court said it was ‘an intrusion – an unbecoming and unseemly intrusion . . offensive to that inbred sense of propriety natural to every man – if, intrusion, indeed, fitly describes a sordid spying into the privacy of domestic life – into the home (a word hitherto sacred among us).’ The plaintiff’s affidavits: ‘state distinctly the belief of the Plaintiff, that the catalogue and the descriptive and other remarks therein contained, could not have been compiled or made, except by means of the possession of the several impressions of the said etchings surreptitiously and improperly obtained. To this case no answer is made . . If then, these compositions were kept private, except as to some . . sent to [B] for the purposes of having certain impressions taken, the possession of the Defendant . . must have originated in a breach of trust, confidence, or contract, in [B] or some person in his employ taking more impressions than were ordered, and retaining the extra number.’ Lord Cottenham LC said: ‘privacy is the right invaded.’

Vice-Chancellor Knight-Bruce, Lord Cottenham LC
(1849) 1 H and Tw 1, 2 De G and SM 293, (1849) 1 Mac and G 25, [1849] EWHC Ch J20, [1849] EngR 255, (1849) 41 ER 1171, [1849] EngR 261, (1849) 47 ER 1302, (1849) 2 De Gex and Sim 652
Bailii, Commonlii, Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ann Paxton Gee v William Pritchard And William Anderson 17-Jul-1818
The Lord Chancellor repudiated an argument that the publication of letters should be restrained, because their publication would be painful to the feelings of the Plaintiff; and said, ‘The question will be, whether the bill has stated facts of which . .
Cited – Wilkins v Aikin 4-Aug-1810
The defendant was said to have copied works of the plaintiff. The court considered the defence of fair use. . .
Cited – Spottiswoode v Clark 11-Dec-1846
A plaintiff seeking an injunction to restrain publication of documents must first demonstrate a title in them. . .
Cited – Rigby And Another v The Great Western Railway Company 1-Dec-1845
. .
Cited – Abernethy v Hutchinson 17-Jun-1825
An application was made to restrain the Defendants from publishing, in ‘The Lancet,’ Mr Abernethy’s Lectures, which had been delivered extemporally. Lord Eldon, at first, refused the application; but afterward granted an injunction, in the ground . .
Cited – Saunders And Benning v Smith And Maxwell 22-Jun-1838
. .
Cited – Gyles v Wilcox, Nutt and Barrow 6-Mar-1740
Copyright Purposes claim limited
The plaintiff bookmaker was publisher of Matthew Hale’s Pleas of the Crown. The first and second defendants hired the third to abridge it and they began to published the result as Modern Crown Law. The plaintiff sought to restrain further . .
Cited – Macklin v Richardson 5-Dec-1770
A short-hand writer took down the words from the mouths of the actors on the stage playing the farce of ‘Love a la Mode’, and the Defendant afterward published them, and an injunction was granted to restrain him, on the ground that the author had . .
Cited – Carr v Hood QBD 1808
Lord Ellenborough said: ‘it is not libellous to ridicule a literary composition, or the author of it, in so far as he has embodied himself with his work.
Every man who publishes a book commits himself to the judgment of the public, and anyone . .
Cited – Clarke v Tipping 18-Apr-1846
The Defendant had bribed the Plaintiff’s agent to make extracts of false entries from the books of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not move for an injunction on the Defendant’s answer; but, on the cause coming on for hearing, it appeared that . .
Cited – Murray v Elliston 3-May-1822
The defendant represented Lord Byron’s tragedy of ‘Marino Faliero, Doge of Venice,’ on the stage, with some alterations from the printed tragedy.
Held: The manager of a theatre having publicly represented for profit a tragedy, altered and . .
Cited – Green v Folgham 10-Jun-1823
. .
Cited – Aldred’s Case 1619
An action would lie where a pig-stye was erected so close to the plaintiff’s house as to corrupt the air in the house, and also and similarly for a lime-kiln with smoke, or where filth from a dye house runs into a fish pond. Where the plaintiff . .
Cited – Pope v Curl 17-Jun-1741
The defendant, on his answer being put in, moved to dissolve an injunction against his vending a book of letters from Swift, Pope,and others.
Held: A collection of letters as well as other books, is within the intention of the 8th of Queen . .
Cited – Bridgeman v Green 1757
The question before the court was whether certain money, which had been obtained by fraud, ought to be returned to the Plaintiff by a party who had received it, but who was not a party to the fraud. Lord Commissioner Wilmot said, ‘Whoever receives . .
Cited – Duke of Queensberry v Shebbeare 31-Jul-1758
The court considered the grant of an injunction to restrain publication of a manuscript of Lord Clarendon’s ‘History of the Reign of Charles the Second’ delivered to the defendant, but not for publication.
Held: The injunction was granted. . .
Cited – Millar v Taylor 20-Apr-1769
Yates J said: ‘It is certain every man has a right to keep his own sentiments if he pleases. He has certainly a right to judge whether he will make them public, or commit them only to the sight of his friends. In that state the manuscript is, in . .
Cited – Donaldson v Beckett HL 22-Feb-1774
Copyright Must Be Limited in Time
The booksellers’ statutory copyright rights had expired. They requested the court to recognise a continuing right akin to copyright under common law.
Held: Following Hinton -v- Donaldson, the Lords dissolved an injunction against Alexander . .
Cited – Sir Charles Thompson And Others, Executors of Lord Chesterfield v Eugenia Stanhope, Widow, And John Dodsley 23-Mar-1774
Lord Apsley granted an injunction, on the application of Lord Chesterfield’s executor, to restrain the widow of his son from publishing letters which the son had received from Lord Chesterfield. . .
Cited – Lord And Lady Perceval v Phipps 3-Jun-1813
Copyright in private letters remained even after transmission and an injunction could be granted to prevent further repubication. However here where the defendant was relying upon the letters to disprove false allegations made against him, that . .
Cited – Earl Cholmondeley v Lord Clinton 3-Feb-1815
An Attorney or solicitor cannot give up his client, and act for the opposite party, in any suit between them. . .
Cited – Southey v Sherwood And Others 18-Mar-1817
Lord Eldon refused an injunction to restrain the publication of Wat Tyler, because he held the work itself to be of an injurious tendency; but he maintained the principle, that, if the work had been innocent in its character, the author would have . .

Cited by:
Cited – Douglas etc v Hello! Ltd etc ChD 11-Apr-2003
The claimants were to be married. They sold the rights to publish photographs of their wedding, but various of the defendants took and published unauthorised pictures.
Held: The claimants had gone to lengths to ensure the commercial value of . .
Cited – British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd HL 7-May-1980
The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief.
Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd ChD 1968
Requirememts to prove breach of confidence
A claim was made for breach of confidence in respect of technical information whose value was commercial.
Held: Megarry J set out three elements which will normally be required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – Murray v Express Newspapers Plc and Another ChD 7-Aug-2007
The claimant, now aged four and the son of a famous author, was photographed by use of a long lens, but in a public street. He now sought removal of the photograph from the defendant’s catalogue, and damages for breach of confidence.
Held: The . .
Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Approved – Lamb v Evans CA 1893
The plaintiff printed and published a multi-lingual European trade directory, engaging the defendants as commission agents to solicit paid entries for the directory. The businessmen could, if they wished, supply wood blocks or other materials from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Information

Leading Case

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.181403

Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO – Schwamm and Cie (Le Coq De France): ECFI 1 Feb 2018

Judgment – Trademark of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – Application for the word mark of the European Union Le Coq de France – Prior national figurative mark rooster – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of goods and services – Similarity signs – Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 2017/1001)

ECLI:EU:T:2018:56, [2018] EUECJ T-457/16
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.604710

Gervais Danone v EUIPO – Mahou (B’Lue) (Judgment): ECFI 28 Apr 2016

ECJ EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark B’lue – Earlier EU word mark BLU DE SAN MIGUEL – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

T-803/14, [2016] EUECJ T-803/14, ECLI:EU:T:2016:251
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563093

Jaakiekon Sm-Liiga v EUIPO (Liiga) (Judgment): ECFI 28 Apr 2016

ECJ EU trade mark – Application for EU figurative mark Liiga – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

T-54/15, [2016] EUECJ T-54/15, ECLI:EU:T:2016:250
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563096

Niagara Bottling v EUIPO (Niagara) (Judgment): ECFI 27 Apr 2016

ECJ EU trade mark – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark NIAGARA – Absolute grounds for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

T-89/15, [2016] EUECJ T-89/15, ECLI:EU:T:2016:244
Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563100

Liffers v Producciones Mandarina SL: ECJ 17 Mar 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual property – Directive 2004/48/EC – Article 13(1) – Audiovisual work – Infringing activity – Damages – Rules for calculation – Lump sum – Moral prejudice – Inclusion)

C-99/15, [2016] EUECJ C-99/15
Bailii
Directive 2004/48/EC

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561956

Choice v EUIPO (Choice Chocolate and Ice Cream): ECFI 12 Apr 2016

(Judgment) Mark of the European Union – the figurative mark EU Choice Application chocolate and ice cream – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7, paragraph 1 c) of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009

T-361/15, [2016] EUECJ T-361/15, ECLI: EU: T: 2016 214
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561977

American Science and Engineering Inc v Rapiscan Systems Inc (Patent): IPO 3 Mar 2016

IPO Revocation was sought on the grounds of a lack of inventive step. The invention relates to an X-ray scanning and detection system for inspecting vehicles and cargo containers for suspicious trade and illicit substances. The arrangement set out in the patent provides a four sided X-ray imaging system using a combination of transmission and backscatter imaging sensors to create an image of a vehicle.
The Hearing Office considered whether an unpleaded argument in relation to collocation should be heard, and decided that it should be set aside as the defendant had not had a proper chance to deal with the issue and would be invited to file any additional submissions and evidence deemed necessary to decide the matter.
The Hearing Officer went on to consider the arguments put forward in the original statement of case and found the invention as claimed to involve an inventive step.
The issue of collocation is yet to be decided.

Mr P Slater
[2016] UKIntelP o11916, GB2483830 B
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561307

Merck Sharp and Dohme Corporation (Patent): IPO 12 Jan 2016

This SPC application concerns the combination of active ingredients, ezetimibe and atorvastatin, found in the medicinal product, ATOZET (RTM). A marketing authorization for ATOZET was being sought under the decentralised procedure (DCP) but, at the date of application for the SPC on 12 September 2014, which was only 1 day before expiry of the patent, the applicant did not provide details of a granted UK Marketing Authorisation (MA) in support of their SPC application. Instead the applicant referred to a document identified as the ‘End of Procedure Communication of Approval’, dated 10 September 2014, issued by the the German Medicines Agency, as evidence that the product would, within 30 days, be subject to a granted UK authorisation. The examiner considered that the application failed to meet the requirements of Articles 3(b) and 3(c) of the SPC Regulation.
In relation to Article 3(b), the applicant, citing EI du Pont de Nemours and Co v UK IPO [2009] EWCA Civ 966 (DuPont) considered that they should be able to supplement their UK application with the information on the granted MA when it was issued. The hearing officer considered the Directive 2001/83/EC, especially, Article 28, and the timetable and explanation of this timetable provided in the related EU guidance on DCP. He considered the relevance of DuPont which outlined circumstances under which an SPC application may be supplemented with information or documents after the date of application. The Hearing Officer (HO) found that on the date that the application for an SPC was made in the UK, the applicant did not have a granted authorisation for the medicinal product comprising the active ingredients in the UK. The HO also considered that SPC Application could not be rectified or supplemented as proposed by the applicant after the application date, and after the expiry date of the patent, because the circumstances in this case did not result from a failure by the relevant competent body to issue a granted marketing authorisation within the required period (of 30 days) under the Directive.
The basic patent EP0720599 was the subject of two earlier granted SPCs concerning ezetimibe. The HO considered if the present application fulfilled the requirement under Article 3(c). Having considered the relevant CJEU case-law (Sanofi, C-433/12, and Boehringer, C-577/13) and reviewed the description and claims of the basic patent, the HO found that the combination of active ingredients, ezetimibe and atorvastatin, was ‘protected as such’ by the basic patent – it is part of the subject matter or innovation protected by the patent and falls within the core inventive advance disclosed therein. Hence the application, as filed, does meet the requirement under Article 3(c) of the SPC regulation.
As the application was found not to meet the requirement under Article 3(b) of the SPC Regulation, the HO rejected the application under Article 10(2) of this Regulation.

[2016] UKIntelP o11716
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561253

Walljam Limited and IEE International Electronics and Engineering Sa (Patent): IPO 25 Jan 2016

A request that WallJam Limited and IEE International Electronics and Engineering S.A should be deemed to be jointly entitled to be granted a patent for the invention set out in two patent applications was supported by Walljam, the currently named sole applicant for the two applications. The appropriate order was therefore made.

Mr P Thorpe
[2016] UKIntelP o04116
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561269

Puma v OHMI – Sinda Poland (Representation D’Un Animal): ECFI 25 Feb 2016

(Judgment) Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for a figurative mark representing an animal – Previous international figurative marks representing a puma – Relative ground for refusal – Similarity of the signs – Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation – 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:99, [2016] EUECJ T-692/14
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560490

Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris v OHMI – Vicente Gandia Pla (Illiria): ECFI 2 Feb 2016

ECJ Judgment – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark ILLIRIA – Earlier Community word mark CASTILLO DE LIRIA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

T-541/14, [2016] EUECJ T-541/14
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559495

LR Health and Beauty Systems v OHMI – Robert Mcbride (LR Nova Pure): ECFI 26 Jan 2016

ECJ Judgment – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark LR nova pure. – Earlier international word mark NOVA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

T-202/14, [2016] EUECJ T-202/14, ECLI:EU:T:2016:28
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559478

Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 2 Dec 2014

The claimant company sought an interim injunction to require the defendant to refrain from the use of the claimant’s registered trade mark in bidding for advertising responses for its web pages in competition with the claimant.
Held: The injunction was refused. Given the balancing arguments, the possible damage to the defendant’s business was irrevocable.

Birss J
[2014] EWHC 4168 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Heythrop Zoological Gardens Ltd (T/A Amazing Animals) and Another v Captive Animals Protection Society ChD 20-May-2016
The claimant said that the defendant had, through its members visiting their premises, breached the licence under which they entered, by taking photographs and distributing them on the internet, and in so doing also infringing the performance rights . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.550169

Merck KgaA v Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp and Others: PatC 15 Jan 2016

The court was asked how a coexistence agreement dating from the 1950s can operate in the age of the Internet: and if its scope of operation is limited, then how the general law applies to the activities of the parties.

Norris J
[2016] EWHC 49 (Pat)
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558741

Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHMI- Marpefa (Vieta): ECFI 10 Dec 2015

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Community Customs Code – Post-clearance examination of declarations – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – National rules placing restrictions on re-examination of the results of a post-clearance examination – Powers – Decision on the first post-clearance examination – Incorrect or incomplete information not known on the date of the decision

ECLI:EU:C:2015:803, [2015] EUECJ T-690/14
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557034

Pagkiprios organismos ageladotrofon Dimosia Ltd v Commission: ECFI 7 Dec 2015

(Order) Application for interim measures – Publication of an application for registration of a protected designation of origin – ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency

T-584/15, [2015] EUECJ T-584/15 – CO
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property, Agriculture

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557026

LTJ Diffusion v OHMI – Arthur And Aston (Arthur and Aston): ECFI 15 Dec 2015

ECFI (Judgment) Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for word mark ARTHUR and ASTON – Earlier national figurative mark Arthur – Absence of genuine use of the mark – Article 15, paragraph 1 a) of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009 – Form differing in elements alter the distinctive character

T-83/14, [2015] EUECJ T-83/14
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557019

Ewald Da Rken v OHMI – Schurmann (Vent Roll): ECFI 25 Nov 2015

ECJ Judgment – Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark VENT ROLL – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character – Article 52, paragraph 1, and Article 7, paragraph 1 b) and c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

T-223/14, [2015] EUECJ T-223/14, ECLI:EU:T:2015:879
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556040

Matratzen Concord v OHMI – Barranco Rodriguez And Barranco Schnitzler (Matratzen Concord): ECFI 19 Nov 2015

ECJ Judgment – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Community trade mark Matratzen Concord – Earlier national word mark MATRATZEN – Relative ground for refusal – Proof of use – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) and Article 42, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

T-526/14, [2015] EUECJ T-526/14
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554860

Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer: ECJ 29 Oct 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Legal protection of databases – Directive 96/9/EC – Article 1(2) – Scope – Databases – Topographic maps – Independence of materials constituting a database – Possibility of separating those materials without affecting the value of their informative content – Account taken of the purpose of a topographic map for the user

C-490/14, [2015] EUECJ C-490/14
Bailii
Directive 96/9/EC 1(2)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554143

Panrico v OHMI – HDN Development (Krispy Kreme Doughnuts): ECFI 7 Oct 2015

ECJ (Judgment) Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS – Earlier national and international word and figurative marks DONUT, DOGHNUTS, donuts and donuts cream – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8 (1) (b) Of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Risk of profit improperly drawn from distinctiveness or reputation – Injury – Article 8 (5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8 (5) of Regulation No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2015:751, [2015] EUECJ T-534/13
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553129

European Dynamics Luxembourg And Others v OHIM: ECFI 7 Oct 2015

ECJ (Judgment (Extracts)) (Public service contracts – Tendering procedure – Supplies of external service provision for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies – Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure – Award criteria – Equal opportunities – Transparency – Manifest error of assessment – Obligation to state reasons – Non-contractual liability – Loss of an opportunity

ECLI:EU:T:2015:757, [2015] EUECJ T-299/11
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553126

CBM v OHMI – Aeronautica Militare (Trecolore) T-228/14: ECFI 7 Oct 2015

ECJ (Judgment) Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark TRECOLORE – Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2015:761, [2015] EUECJ T-228/14
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553123

CBM v OHMI – Aeronautica Militare (Trecolore) T-227/14: ECFI 7 Oct 2015

(Judgment) Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Trecolore – Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2015:760, [2015] EUECJ T-227/14
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553122

CBM v OHMI – Aeronautica Militare (Trecolore) T-365/14: ECFI 7 Oct 2015

(Judgment) Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark TRECOLORE – Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2015:763, [2015] EUECJ T-365/14
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553124

Atlantic Multipower Germany v Ohmi – Nutrichem Diat + Pharma (Noxtreme): ECFI 7 Oct 2015

ECJ (Judgment) Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark NOxtreme – Earlier Community and national figurative marks X-TREME – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009 – Serious use of the earlier mark – Article 43 (2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2015:754, [2015] EUECJ T-186/14
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553120

Sunrider Corporation (T/A Sunrider International) v Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd: ChD 22 Jan 2007

An application had been made to have the trade mark declared invalid. The owner replied saying that the five year period during which a mark might be challenged had expired.
Held: The five year period commenced not from the date when the application for registration of the mark was made, but from the date when the registration was entered. Accordingly the challenge was not out of time.

Warren J
[2007] EWHC 37 (Ch), Times 27-Feb-2007
Bailii
Trade Marks Act 1994 40(3), Council Directive 89/104/EEV (OJ 1989 L40/1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc CA 20-Oct-2009
The parties had long disputed the use of the trade marks ‘Bud’ and ‘Budweiser’ for their beers. The claimant now said that the defendants had made an abusive registration under the 1994 Act, by requesting a declaration that the registration by the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Limitation

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.248254