Understanding Trademark Law Through the Lens of Halloween: A Spooky Guide

Halloween, with its pumpkins, costumes, and haunted houses, is one of the most exciting and creative times of the year. But behind the spooky masks and candy bowls lies a complex world of Intellectual Property Law, especially trademarks, which many businesses need to navigate carefully during the season.

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.

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).

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

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.

Categories: 

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.

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.

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.

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).

Categories: 

As you might already be aware, the European trademark law and practice has been subject to some changes in recent months which may also affect your registered Community Trademark(s) or your International Registration(s) designating the EU. We would, therefore, like to provide our clients with a brief overview of the most important changes and point out where it might be appropriate to take action. The information contained in this letter is of general nature, but we are, of course, always available in case of questions and for further explanations. Should we, in addition, see any need for you to take specific actions regarding your own trademarks, we will contact you individually during the next weeks and inform you accordingly.

 

The European General Court (EGC) decided that the sole shape of the crest of the FC Barcelona has no distinctive character neither itself or through use (Judgment dated 10 December 2015; Case No.: T-615/14).

Background of the Case and Subject Matter  

On 24 April 2013, Fútbol Club Barcelona (FC Barcelona) filed an application for registration of a Community Trademark (CTM) at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). The figurative mark in respect of which registration was sought is the shape of the crest of the FC Barcelona (see below) for – among others – stationery, clothing items and sports activities.