[[{"type":"media","fid":"4515","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2134 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"228","height":"152"}}]] At the 21 April 2015 the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council have reached in so-called "trilogue discussions" provisional political agreement. The pillars of the trademark reform are:

• Significant reductions of the fees for European Union trademarks covering all 28 Member States. The agreed changes will lead to savings of up to 37%, in particular for businesses that seek protection of their registered European Union trademarks beyond an initial period of 10 years;

• Streamlined, more efficient and harmonized registration procedures across all trade mark offices in the EU. Faster and less burdensome procedures will be a great improvement for successfully growing companies, mainly SMEs, which roll out their business beyond one Member State and seek trade mark protection in front of multiple national administrations;

• Strengthened means to fight against counterfeits in particular of goods in transit through the EU’s territory. This will prevent abuse of the EU as a distribution hub for illegal fake goods to world-wide destinations;

• Modernized rules and increased legal certainty by adapting trade mark rules to the modern business environment and clarifying trade mark rights and their limitations.

To read more about the EU Trademark Reform Package: click here

The German Federal Court of Justice decided that the holder of an older trademark is allowed to demand for the cancellation of a registered trademark which is just a parody of their established trademark (Judgment dated 2 April 2015; Case No.: I ZR 59/13). Background of the Case and Subject Matter In 2006 the defendant - a T-shirt designer from Hamburg - registered the word/device mark No. 30567514 “Pudel” („ poodle“) in combination with the image of a “leaping poodle” (see right below) at the German Patent and Trademark office (GPTO). The plaintiff - the famous manufacturer of sports equipment, Puma SE, is the owner of the German word/device mark No. 954 023, consisting of the word “Puma” and the image of a “leaping wild puma” since 1977. The plaintiff sought the cancellation of the defendant’s trademark because Puma SE is of the opinion that the defendant is infringing their trademark rights. The District Court of Hamburg sentenced the defendant to cancel his trademark (Judgment dated 10 February 2009; Case No.: 312 O 394/08). The Higher Regional Court rejected the appeal (Judgment dated 7 March 2013; Case No.: 5 U 39/09). [[{"type":"media","fid":"4064","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2127 alignleft","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"309","height":"169"}}]]  [[{"type":"media","fid":"4063","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2126 alignleft","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"255","height":"170"}}]] Decision of the German Federal Court of Justice The German Federal Court of Justice decided that the parody of an established trademark cannot be registered as a separate brand. First of all the German Federal Court of Justice pointed out that the competing signs are not similar enough to assume a likelihood of confusion. But, the defendant takes advantage of the distinctive character and the repute of the older “Puma” trademark. For this reason, the plaintiff has the right to demand the cancellation of the “Pudel” trademark. Also, the German Federal Court of Justice clarified that the plaintiff’s right in its long-established trademark in such case must be valued higher than the freedom of speech or the artistic freedom of the defendant, laid down in the German constitution. Link: Please note that a decision has been announced, however, the written decision not published yet. This will take a few more weeks. The following link refers to the Court's press release: http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&nr=70695&linked=pm

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4511","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2118 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"245","height":"167"}}]] The Hague Agreement is an international registration system which offers the possibility of obtaining protection for industrial designs in a number of States and/or intergovernmental organizations by means of a single international application filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Introduction The Hague Agreement is consist of four international treaties:

• Hague Agreement of November 6, 1925
• The London Act of June 2, 1934
• The Hague Act of November 28, 1960
• The Geneva Act of July 2, 1999

The original version of the Agreement and the London Act are frozen. The 1999 and the 1960 Acts of the Hague Agreement are autonomous and totally independent of each other. Therefore, every country can become a party to only the Hague Act, only the Geneva Act, or both. If a country signs up to only one of the Acts, then applicants from that country can consequently only use the Hague system to obtain protection for their designs in other countries which are signed up to the same Act. For example, the European Union has only signed the Geneva Act. Therefore, all applicants from the European Union which qualify to use the Hague system can only get protection in countries which have also signed up to the Geneva Act or to the Hague and the Geneva Act. Currently (Status: 15 April 2015) there are 62 Contracting Parties which are members of one or both Acts. Recently, the United States and Japan, as two of the biggest economies in the word, have jointed the Hague System, which is a high enrichment for the system. WIPO is expecting that the accession of the United States and Japan will encourage other countries to join the system. To find out more watch the video. [embed]http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZjHltCMgSM[/embed] Qualification to use the Hague system To be entitled to file an application, an applicant must fulfill the following criteria:[[{"type":"media","fid":"4512","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2119 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"184","height":"187"}}]]

• The applicant must be a national of a Contracting Party or a Member State of an intergovernmental organization which is a Contracting Party
• or have a domicile in the territory of a Contracting Party
• or have a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the territory of a Contracting Party.
• only under the Geneva Act, an international application may be filed on the basis of habitual residence in a Contracting Party

Persons, who are not qualified to use the Hague system, are only able to file an application at the national level. Contents of the Application[[{"type":"media","fid":"4513","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2120 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"271","height":"207"}}]] The international application must be filed in English, French or Spanish on the official form provided by WIPO or with the electronic filing interface available on the WIPO website. The application has to contain a reproduction of the industrial designs and a designation of the Contracting Parties where protection is required. An international application may include up to 100 different designs, but, they have to belong to the same class of the Locarno Classification. The applicant may request that publication of the designs be deferred for a period which cannot exceed 12 months (under the 1960 Act) or 30 months (under the 1999 Act) from the filing date or, where priority is claimed, from the priority date. Fees An international application is subject to the payment of a basic fee; a publication fee, and for each designated Contracting Party, either a standard fee or an individual fee. A schedule of fees, as well as an automatic fee calculator, is available: here (www.wipo.int/hague/en/fees). Examination and registration procedure[[{"type":"media","fid":"4514","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-medium wp-image-2121 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"300","height":"147"}}]] WIPO examines the formal requirements of the application, for example, the quality of the reproductions of the industrial designs and the payment of the required fees. WIPO informs the applicant immediately if there are any faults. Then, the applicant has the chance to correct the irregularities within three months. After the examination WIPO is recording the design in the International Register and publish it in the International Designs Bulletin. It must be stressed that the International Bureau of WIPO does not examine any substantive ground of refusal that means neither if is in fact new nor if it has individual character. After the registration the international protection of the design is valid for five years. It can be renewed for an additional period of five years, in respect of each designated Contracting Party, up to the expiry of the total term of protection allowed by those Contracting Parties respective laws.

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4509","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2097 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"112","height":"148"}}]] In February 2015 the Brand Finance Banking 500 ranking was published in “The Banker” magazine. This annual ranking of the 500 most valuable brands in the banking business is created by Brand Finance. Brand value of banks worldwide Below is an extract of the 2014 annual worldwide ranking about the trademark value of banks. Because of the high participation of 500 banks, the ranking is quite significant. Wells Fargo maintained its No. 1 position with a brand value of approximately 35 billion US- Dollars in 2015. Wells Fargo is followed by the Chinese ICBC and the British HSBC. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4508","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-medium wp-image-2096 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"300","height":"207"}}]] As you can see below, America’s banks remain the most valuable in the world. 60 American bank brands are featured in the global top 500, with a cumulative brand value of 201 billion US- Dollars. But, of interest is that the cumulative brand value of Chinese banks has increased by 29%. They now make up 15% of the brand value of the Banking 500. On the other hand, European banks lost significant value between 2014 and 2015. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4510","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-medium wp-image-2098 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"249","height":"300"}}]]

Every April 26 - the day on which the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) Convention came into force in 1970 - the WIPO celebrates the World Intellectual Property Day to promote discussions about the importance and role of intellectual property. The WIPO’s member states designated this day with the aim of increasing the general understanding of intellectual property, including trademarks, designs, patents, utility models etc. Each year, a special topic and focus is picked. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4050","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-full wp-image-2090","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"600","height":"340"}}]] The 2015 World IP Day Theme This year’s World Intellectual Property Day 2015 focuses on the theme: “Get up, stand up. For music.”  The music industry gives work to thousands of creative people like singers, songwriters, musicians and publishers. The technologies through which we access music has changed dramatically in the last years. Downloading or streaming is getting more and more important, but, these new techniques are often abused by people who do not want to pay for the music they are listening to. Therefore, the protection of IP Rights in the music business is as important as never before. Events on the World IP Day 2015 Accordingly, a lot of events for interested people are planned all over the world. In Germany, for example, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (GPTO) is giving a 3-hour workshop to small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups on the most important aspects of the protection of intellectual property in companies on 20 April 2015, in Berlin. And, in Munich, the GPTO is giving a free introductory workshop to small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups at the Munich Chamber of Commerce on the most important aspects of the protection of intellectual property in companies on 5 May 2015. Click here to find out what events are planned in your country on World IP Day. Link: https://www.google.com/maps/d/view?mid=zmg8fySYF2hA.kfUOJiMS6mHo To get more information click here: http://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/

We invite all our readers come to our seminar “IP Company and Value” on 15 June 2015 in Munich, Germany. Since the foundation of our law firm in 2009, we focus on our client’s intellectual property needs - from a legal, but, also from a business perspective. On 15 June 2015 we will hold an interesting and exiting seminar about “IP and Company Value” in German.  Our experienced lawyers Mrs. Alexandra Dellmeier and Mrs. Hannah Eckermann and the management consultant, Mr. Johannes Spannagl, will give lectures about the creation, evaluation and defense of intellectual property rights. The seminar will be especially interesting for start-ups as well as medium-sized and large companies who want to know the value of and enforce their IP rights. We are looking forward to seeing some of you at our seminar. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4507","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-full wp-image-2086","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"459","height":"100"}}]] To download the flyer in German and to apply - click here: http://lexdellmeier.com/downloads/seminarflyer-lexdellmeier-2015.pdf

The European General Court (EGC) decided that the Community Trademark (CTM) VOODOO is not descriptive because the word “VOODOO” will just be seen as a fantasy term with a vague reference to some occult practices by the average consumer (Judgment dated 18 November 2014; Case No.: T‑50/13). Background of the Case and Subject Matter On 15 April 2007, the applicant filed for a CTM at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) for the word mark “VOODOO” for clothing. On 10 March 2010 the CTM was registered under the number 5832464. Afterwards, in March 2010, the intervener, Think Schuhwerk GmbH, applied for a declaration that the contested trademark is invalid at OHIM. In its application for a declaration of invalidity the intervener alleged that the contested trademark is descriptive and lacks any distinctive character because the word mark “VOODOO” just describes a specific style of clothing or footwear which is used in the Voodoo religion. Also, the intervener based its declaration on the assumption that the applicant filed its application in bad faith. The Cancellation Division rejected the request for declaration of invalidity. The Board of Appeal (BoA) upheld this decision in second instance. Therefore, the Think Schuhwerk GmbH appealed further to the EGC. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4505","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-full wp-image-2076","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"600","height":"375"}}]] Decision of the Court The European General Court (EGC) upheld the decision of the BoA. First, the court pointed out, that the evidence submitted by the applicant does not show that it is reasonable to believe that the mark”VOODOO” will actually be recognized by the relevant consumer as a description for the goods. The relevant public by reference to which the likelihood of confusion must be assessed is composed of average consumers in the EU. This average consumer may associate occult practices and black magic with Voodoo Dolls (see above) which originally come from Haiti or Africa with the word “VOODOO”. But, none of the evidence submitted by the intervener demonstrates that for these practices special clothing is needed or that the actions are bound on predefined rituals, places or events and are only for special persons. As a result of that the EGC upheld the finding of the BoA that the word “VOODOO” will be seen as a fantasy term with a vague reference to some occult practices. Therefore, the trademark is not (directly) descriptive. The EGC also is not of the opinion that the applicant was in bad faith because he knew that the trademark was rejected at the 12 June 2007 by the German Patent and Trademark Office. The court refused this argument because a priority may be lawfully claimed from an application being the subsequent outcome of that application not registered. Finally, the EGC is also convinced that the applicant was not in bad faith because he circumvented the obligation of use of its prior CTM „VOODOO“ for class headings. The EGC is of the opinion, that the applicant applied for the second trademark for specific goods in relation to clothing with the intention to create clearness and preciseness regarding to the scope of protection and not in a fraudulent way.

The General Court of the European Union (EGC) decided that the invisible character of a product - in this case a cookie - does not relate to the appearance and therefore cannot taken into account in the examination of the requirements to fulfill for registration.  An exception occurs only when the design meets the requirements of a complex product. Therefore, it has to be composed of multiple components which can be replaced permitting disassembly and re-assembly. For these reasons, this registered design for a chocolate filled cookie was invalidated (Judgment dated 9 September 2014; Case No.: T 494/12). Background of the Case and Subject Matter On 25 March 2009, the applicant Biscuits Poult SAS, filed an application for registration of a Community Design with the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) for the following design (Community Design No 1114292-0001) for “cookies”: [[{"type":"media","fid":"4496","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-full wp-image-2057","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"263","height":"118"}}]] Thereon, in February 2010, the intervener, the Banketbakkerij Merba BV applied to OHIM for a declaration that the contested design is invalid. In its application for a declaration of invalidity, the intervener alleged that the contested design is not new and has no individual character and that its appearance is just dictated by its technical function. In support of its application for a declaration of invalidity, the intervener argued, in support of its contention that the contested design is not new and lacked individual character, the earlier designs set out below:   [[{"type":"media","fid":"4497","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2058 alignleft","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"97","height":"81"}}]][[{"type":"media","fid":"4498","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2059 alignleft","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"110","height":"81"}}]][[{"type":"media","fid":"4499","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2060 alignleft","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"83","height":"80"}}]][[{"type":"media","fid":"4500","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2061 alignleft","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"155","height":"81"}}]][[{"type":"media","fid":"4501","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2062 alignleft","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"108","height":"80"}}]][[{"type":"media","fid":"4503","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2064 alignleft","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"110","height":"78"}}]] [[{"type":"media","fid":"4504","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2065 alignleft","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"105","height":"78"}}]][[{"type":"media","fid":"4502","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2063 alignleft","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"137","height":"78"}}]]             By decision of 28 February 2011, the Cancellation Division of OHIM dismissed the application for a declaration that the contested design was invalid. Therefore, the intervener lodged an appeal at OHIM against the decision of the Cancellation Division on 22 April 2011. By decision of 2 August 2012, the Third Board of Appeal (BoA) of OHIM declared the contested design invalid because the BoA is of the opinion that the disputable design has no individual character. The BoA pointed out that the layer of filling inside the cookie could not be taken into consideration for the assessment of the individual character of the contested design, as it does not remain visible during normal course of use of the product. Furthermore, the BoA considered that the outer appearance of the contested design was the same as the first three earlier designs (see above). Finally, the BoA found that the contested design does not produce on an informed user who regularly consumes that type of cookie a different overall impression from that produced by the three earlier designs, given the broad margin of freedom the designer of this type of product has. Therefore, the applicant - Biscuits Poult SAS - appealed further to the EGC. Decision of the Court The EGC dismissed the action and endorsed the BoA’s findings. The court argued that the BoA did not err in stating that the invisible character of the product does not relate to the appearance and cannot take into account in the examination of the requirements to fulfil for register a design. Furthermore, a cookie such as the one portrayed in the contested design is not a complex product because it is not composed of multiple components which can be replaced permitting disassembly and re-assembly. Finally, the EGC figured out that the irregular, rough surface on the outside of the cookie, its golden color, round shape and the presence of chocolate chips are characteristics which are common to the conflicting designs and decisive for the overall impression produced on an informed user, so that the contested design cannot be regarded as having individual character.

The General Court of the European Union (EGC) decided that that a likelihood of confusion between the word/device mark “Master” of Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd and the earlier trademark “Coca Cola” of the Coca - Cola Company cannot be excluded (Judgment dated 11 December 2014; Case No.: T‑480/12). Background of the Case and Subject Matter On 10 May 2010, the intervener - Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (“Mitico”) - filed an application for registration of a Community trademark at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) for the following word/device mark for – among others – nonalcoholic beverages: [[{"type":"media","fid":"4492","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-full wp-image-2042","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"240","height":"198"}}]] Thereon, in October 2010 the American multinational beverage corporation and manufacturer, retailer and marketer of nonalcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups “The Coca-Cola Company” filed an opposition based on four earlier Coca-Cola Community word/device trademarks reproduced below:   [[{"type":"media","fid":"4493","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-full wp-image-2043","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"502","height":"199"}}]]   And it was also based on the earlier United Kingdom figurative mark “C”, reproduced below:   [[{"type":"media","fid":"4494","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-full wp-image-2044","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"464","height":"120"}}]]   The Coca - Cola Company filed an opposition on the basis that the trademark “Master” is confusingly similar to Coca - Cola’s earlier registrations and on the basis of the high reputation of its earlier trademarks. Coca - Cola is of the opinion that a likelihood of confusion between the two trademarks exists because both trademarks are written in the “Spenserian script”; also the letter “a” of the trademarks is similar and both use a “tail” for the first letter. Therefore, the trademark “Master” is particularly similar from a visual perspective, although it conceded that the trademarks were dissimilar phonetically and conceptually. Decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM OHIM originally dismissed the opposition and Coca-Cola appealed to the Board of Appeal (BoA) who also rejected the action determining that there is no similarity between the trademarks and so there could be no likelihood of confusion and also no link could be established between the trademarks. The BoA argued that, although Coca-Cola is the proprietor of a range of highly famous and well-known Coca-Cola trademarks whose reputation was connected to their depiction in “Spenserian script”, that did not mean that it was the proprietor of that - undeniably elegant - script, which was freely available to be used by everybody. Furthermore, although the goods are identical and the earlier trademarks have an undeniable reputation, it is difficult to understand why a consumer would confuse the word “Master”, combined with an Arabic word with the earlier trademarks containing the word “Coca-Cola”, when no overlap textually. Therefore, OHIM and the BoA came to the result that there is nothing tangible in the earlier signs which was reproduced in the sign applied for, apart from the ‘tail’ element of each sign, flowing from the base of the letters “C” and “M” respectively. Finally, the BoA dismissed Coca-Cola’s assertion that, in practice and on the market, Mitico was supplying products bearing labels mimicking those to be found on Coca-Cola’s products, on the ground that the relevant question in the case before it was whether the trademark as applied for was confusingly similar to the earlier trademarks as registered, and the way in which the trademarks might be used in practice was irrelevant for the purposes of that assessment. Therefore, the Coca-Cola Company appealed further to the General Court of the European Union (EGC). Decision of the Court The EGC reassessed the similarity of the trademarks and concluded that the BoA was wrong to hold that there was no degree of similarity between the marks. During the opposition proceedings, Coca - Cola had provided evidence relating to Mitico’s commercial use of the mark in respect of which registration was sought. That evidence included a witness statement by L. Ritchie, Coca-Cola’s lawyer, dated 23 February 2011, to which she appended screen shots of Mitico’s website, www.mastercola.com, printed on 16 February 2011. Those screen shots were intended to show that Mitico was using the trademark applied for in the course of trade in the form shown below:   [[{"type":"media","fid":"4495","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-full wp-image-2045","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"494","height":"192"}}]]   The BoA stated that if, on the basis of that evidence, it were proved to be true that Mitico had deliberately adopted the same get-up, imagery, stylization, font and packaging as the Coca-Cola Company, then the latter could reasonably argue that Mitico intended to illegitimately take advantage of the repute of the earlier trademarks. But, these circumstances cannot be taken into account in the decision, if there is no similarity at all between the trademarks of Coca Cola to the trademark “Master”. The EGC pointed out, that if there is some similarity, however faint, between the conflicting trademarks, a global assessment must be carried out in order to ascertain whether, notwithstanding the low degree of similarity between the signs, there is, on account of the presence of other relevant factors such as the reputation of recognition of the earlier trademark, a likelihood of confusion or a link made between the trademarks and the relevant public. Therefore, the EGC came to the conclusion that there is a low degree of similarity because both trademarks are written in the “Spenserian script” and both use a “tail” for the first letter. The BoA failed to carry out a global assessment taking into account that both trademarks are written in Spenserian script, and accordingly failed to regognize that element of visual similarity between the signs at issue. But, in this specific case even only a low degree of visual similarity is sufficient as the products behind the trademarks are sold in self services stores. Consumers in such stores are guided more by the overall visual impression. As a result, the figurative element is even more important than the word itself. However faint the degree of similarity between the signs is, the relevant public might establish a link between the trademarks at issue. Therefore, the BoA is allowed to take into consideration all circumstances - the get-up, imagery, stylization, font and packaging - in their decision. The EGC held that the above assessment by the BoA departed from the existing case-law, pursuant to which, in essence, a finding of a risk of free-riding may be established, in particular, on the basis of logical deductions resulting from an analysis of the probabilities and by taking account of the usual practices in the relevant commercial sector as well as all the other circumstances of the case, including the use, by the proprietor of the mark applied for, of packaging similar to that of the goods of the proprietor of the earlier trademarks. As it is, the evidence relating to the commercial use of the trademark applied for, as produced by Coca-Cola during the opposition proceedings, manifestly constitutes relevant evidence for the purposes of establishing such a risk of free-riding in the present case. On the above basis, the EGC concluded that there is a risk that the public might establish a link between MITICO’s goods and those of Coca-Cola and that the BoA was wrong to conclude otherwise. For these reasons, the EGC annulled the contested decision and asked the BoA to re-examine the case on the basis of the EGC’s findings. We are looking forward to the BoA’s decision within the next months.    

The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), the responsible office in the EU for registering Community Trademarks and Community Designs having the "automatic" effect throughtout 28 national EU Member States, just published a unique map which gives a quick overview on Intellectual Property (here: Trademarks, Designs, Patents and Copyrights). [[{"type":"media","fid":"4491","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-full wp-image-2035","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"660","height":"303"}}]]