“The colour purple (or rather pantone 2685C) is only slightly less gripping. It is the subject of a tussle between two of the world’s largest confectionery companies the latest stage of which has just ended in the Court of Appeal ( Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A. v Cadbury UK Ltd. [2013] EWCA Civ 1174 (4 Oct 2013)).”
NIPC Law, 4th October 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
“The makers of the energy drink Red Bull have announced they will not proceed with a legal challenge against the Redwell brewery using its name on its beers because it is too similar.”
The Independent, 15th August 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“A Norfolk micro brewery has been told it must change its name or face legal action, because it sounds too similar to the energy drink Red Bull.”
BBC News, 14th August 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“A trade mark owner has won the right to stop its mark being adopted as a new generic ‘top-level’ domain (gTLD) by a rival company.”
OUT-LAW.com, 9th August 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“‘Genuine use’ within the meaning of article 15(1) and article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 could be fulfilled where a Community figurative mark was used only in conjunction with a Community word mark which was superimposed over it, and the combination of those two marks was, furthermore, itself registered as a Community trade mark, to the extent that the differences between the form in which that trade mark was used and that in which it was registered did not change the distinctive character of that trade mark as registered. Where a Community trade mark was not registered in colour, but the proprietor had used it extensively in a particular colour or combination of colours with the result that it had become associated in the mind of a significant portion of the public with that colour or combination of colours, the colour or colours which a third party used in order to represent a sign alleged to infringe that trade mark were relevant in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion or unfair advantage pursuant to article 9(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. The fact that the third party making use of a sign which allegedly infringed the registered trade mark was itself associated, in the mind of a significant portion of the public, with the colour or particular combination of colours which it used for the representation of that sign was relevant to the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion and unfair advantage for the purposes of article 9(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.”
WLR Daily, 18th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“In British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others v Microsoft Corporation Microsoft and another [2013] EWHC 1826 (Ch), Sky (that is to say British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, Sky IP International Limited, British Sky Broadcasting Limited and Sky International AG) sued Microsoft (Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Luxembourg Sarl) for infringement of its British and Community trade marks and passing off while Microsoft counterclaimed for declarations of invalidity of Sky’s trade marks on grounds of descriptiveness and impermissible amendment.”
NIPC Law, 7th July 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
“The concept of ‘bad faith’ within article 4(4)(g) of Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95/EC of 22 October 2008 (to approximate the laws of the member states relating to trade marks) was an autonomous concept of European Union law which had to be given a uniform interpretation within the Union. The fact that the applicant for a trade mark registration knew or should have known that a third party was using a mark abroad at the time of filing his application, which was liable to be confused with his mark, was not sufficient, in itself, to permit the conclusion that the applicant was acting in bad faith. Member states were not permitted to introduce a system of specific protection of foreign marks which differed from the system established by article 4(4)(g) and which was based on the fact that the person making the application for registration of a mark knew or should have known of a foreign mark.”
WLR Daily, 27th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The High Court has recently ruled in Interflora’s favour in its long-running dispute with Marks and Spencer (Interflora, inc and Interflora British Unit v Marks and Spencer plc and Flowers Direct Online Limited [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch)).”
Technology Law Update, 10th June 2013
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
“There was no rule in European trade mark law that the use of a sign in context was deemed to convey a single meaning in law even if it was in fact understood by different people in different ways.”
WLR Daily, 21st May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“With the recent debates about an in-out EU referendum rumbling on, the relationship between the UK and the EU is under continuing scrutiny. The political and economic issues of a withdrawal may take newspaper headlines, but the impact on Community trade marks and registered designs should not be forgotten either.”
Technology Law Update, 24th May 2013
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
“Marks and Spencer has lost a five-year legal battle with Interflora after it bought advertising space tied to Google searches for the flower delivery network’s name.”
The Guardian, 21st May 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co (Case C–12/12); [2013] WLR (D) 143
“The condition of ‘genuine use’ of a trade mark, within the meaning of article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, was satisfied where a registered trade mark, which had become distinctive as a result of the use of another composite mark of which it constituted one of the elements, was used only through that other composite mark, or where it was used only in conjunction with another mark, and the combination of those two marks was, furthermore, itself registered as a trade mark.”
WLR Daily, 18th April 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A law reform body has proposed changes to the law that would make it easier for businesses seeking to protect their trade marks and design rights to make threats of legal action against alleged infringers of their rights without fear that those threats could be the subject of court action.”
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd April 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Courts can calculate trade mark infringement damages based on a hypothetical licensing arrangement, the High Court has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 17th April 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“In a consultation opening today, the Law Commission seeks views on reform of the law relating to groundless threats of litigation over patents, trade marks and design rights.”
Law Commission, 17th April 2013
Source: www.lawcommission.justice.gov.uk
Regina v Hampshire County Council [2013] WLR (D) 117
“There was no reason to stay confiscation proceedings where a trademark offence had been committed, because trademark offences were lifestyle, repeat offences, which did real damage to those entitled to the profits of a trademark and deprived the manufacturers of the legitimate fruits of the research and development of their product and it was proceeds which mattered rather than blame.”
WLR Daily, 20th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
The exclusive right of the proprietor of a Community trade mark conferred by article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 to prohibit all third parties from using, in the course of trade, signs identical with or similar to its trade mark extended to a third-party proprietor of a later registered Community trade mark, without the need for that later mark to have previously been declared invalid.
WLR Daily, 21st February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Leno Merken BV v Hageldruis Beheer BV: (Case C-149/11); [2012] WLR (D) 388
“The territorial borders of the member states should be disregarded in the assessment of whether a trade mark had been put to ‘genuine use in the Community’ within the meaning of article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community Trade Mark (OJ 2009 L78, p 1).”
WLR Daily, 19th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“UK internet TV provider YouView has been sued for trademark infringement in a dispute over the product’s name.”
BBC News, 26th November 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024