NEW - International Comparative Legal Guide – Designs 2025

Beitragsdatum: 
26. November 2024
Categories: 
Design Law, FAQ
Tags: 
ICLG, Designs 2025

If you are looking for practical insights and intelligence on design law in different jurisdictions, the International Comparative Legal Guide published by glg Global Legal Group is a valuable source of information.

iclg_2025_cover.png

Weiterlesen über NEW - International Comparative Legal Guide – Designs 2025

Wordmark “BIMBO” descriptive for products intended for children

Beitragsdatum: 
26. April 2016
Categories: 
Uncategorized
Tags: 
Decision, descriptive, European General Court

n its judgement of 18 March 2016, the General Court ruled that the wordmark “BIMBO” cannot be registered as a European Trademark. The Italian-speaking consumers of the Union would merely perceive the mark as indicating that the relevant products are intended for children  (Judgement T-33/15).

“BIMBO”

Background of the case

Newly released Common Communication: Convergence on graphic representations of Designs

Beitragsdatum: 
26. April 2016
Categories: 
Uncategorized
Tags: 
Common Communication, Designs, European Trade Mark and Design Network, Graphical representations of Designs

On 15 April 2016, the European Trade Mark and Design Network published a Common Communication on Convergence on graphic representations of designs (CP6).

 

 

The Communication on the Graphical representations of designs is a result of the cooperation between the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), National IP Offices and User Associations in a so-called Convergence Programme. The aim is to reach a common ground in areas where IP offices have different practices.

The CP6 is the first one published in the area of designs. The aim is to give guidance for the examination procedures on e.g.:

Licensing – a way to exploit your trademark

Beitragsdatum: 
19. April 2016
Categories: 
Brand, Licensing, Uncategorized
Tags: 
Brand Value, License Agreements, Trademark Licensing

A trademark can be any sign capable of distinguishing the products of one company from those of another. If you own a trademark, you have exclusive rights to use that trademark on the products you have protected and are offering on the market. This means that you can prevent any third party from using the same or a similar mark for the same products. Consumers usually base their purchasing decision on the good reputation of or their previous experience with a brand. The trademark attached to the products is therefore of great value to a company as it helps the consumers to pick out products from a specific commercial origin.

Through a license agreement the owner of a trademark, the licensor, can allow third parties, the licensees, to use his trademark under certain conditions in return for payment.

Mercedes-Benz: Trademark use in online advertising

Beitragsdatum: 
05. April 2016
Categories: 
Uncategorized
Tags: 
ECJ Decision, Mercedes-Benz Trademark, Online Advertising, Trademark, Trademark Infringement

In its preliminary ruling of 3 March 2016, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that actions on trademark infringements in online advertising cannot be brought against a third party who is not in direct or indirect control of the act constituting the trademark use (Judgement C-179/15).

A case of „Bounty“ hunting in Germany

Beitragsdatum: 
04. April 2016
Categories: 
Distinctiveness, German Federal Court, Three-dimensional trademarks, Uncategorized
Tags: 
Distinctiveness, German Federal Court, three-dimensional trademarks

On 21 October 2015, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that the registered 3D trademark of Mars‘ „Bounty“ chocolate bar is protected against trademark use by competitors. The Court held that if the public perceived the shape of a product as a source indicator, then it was very likely to do the same with a highly similar shape of a competitor’s product, as long as the goods were identical.

Background of the case

Counterfeited goods seized in Greece

Beitragsdatum: 
01. April 2016
Categories: 
Counterfeiting, Product Piracy, Uncategorized
Tags: 
Counterfeits, Product Piracy

Greek Police has had a productive month. With a massive destruction of seized counterfeits, they are showing the counterfeiters they are a force to be reckoned with. On March 17, 2016 Hellenic Police conducted a huge raid and seizure of counterfeit goods. The Police reported appropriation of around 19 000 items, 11.517 of which were blouses, 2.918 pairs of sports shoes, 1.845 purses and bags, 1.444 pieces of underwear, and the rest was divided between pants, shirts and caps.

EUIPO - New Office Name and Regulations in force as of 23 March 2016

Beitragsdatum: 
23. März 2016
Categories: 
Uncategorized

As of 23 March, the Office's name has changed to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

The name of the unitary trade mark administered by the Office has changed to the European Union trade mark.

These changes took effect upon the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2015/2424.

Adidas officially earning its stripes

Beitragsdatum: 
11. März 2016
Categories: 
Brand, Community Trademark, Intellectual Property, Trademarks
Tags: 
Brands, Community Trademark, European Court of Justice, European General Court, Trademarks

With the CJEU´s ruling on 17 February 2016, a lengthy saga concerning Adidas might have come to an end. After contesting everything from two to five stripes, creating and using an abundance of case law, logging a fair share of hours in the courtroom, it might have all- at least in the EU- come down to one thing: acquired distinctiveness.

EGC´s "HOT SOX" decision doesn´t knock anyone´s socks off

Beitragsdatum: 
09. März 2016
Categories: 
Uncategorized
Tags: 
Community Trademark, Decision, descriptive, Distinctiveness, European General Court, Trademarks

On 26 February 2016, the European General Court (EGC) upheld OHIM´s decision dated 13 May 2014 and ruled in favor of Renfro Corp., deciding that the name “HOT SOX” for hosiery is not descriptive and does not lack distinctiveness.

In Switzerland, Apple’s iPhone home button is considered not distinctive, but purely decorative.

Beitragsdatum: 
08. März 2016
Categories: 
Decisions, Distinctiveness
Tags: 
Distinctiveness, figurative marks, Trademarks

The Federal Administrative Court in Switzerland recently ruled that Apple’s home button cannot be registered as a trademark as it lacks distinctive character. The Court did not find it evident that the mark had acquired distinctiveness. (Judgement B-2418_2014 of 17 February 2016).