<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>World Trademark Review</title>
    <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/</link>
    <description>The latest content from WTR Magazine.</description>
    <copyright>Globe White Page Ltd 2003 - 2010</copyright>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <managingEditor>tlittle@worldtrademarkreview.com (Trevor Little)</managingEditor>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
    

    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: TTAB sustains opposition based on likelihood of dilution by blurring</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In National Pork Board v Supreme Lobster and Seafood Company, the TTAB has held that the mark THE OTHER RED MEAT for use with fresh and frozen salmon was likely to blur the distinctiveness of opponent National Pork Board's mark THE OTHER WHITE MEAT, which is registered and used for goods and services relating to the promotion of the pork industry.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d99eb134-0bf5-4996-8fdb-530e708cd3d3</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d99eb134-0bf5-4996-8fdb-530e708cd3d3</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d99eb134-0bf5-4996-8fdb-530e708cd3d3#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>National procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Mark rejected even though first part already registered as CTM</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Actega Terra GmbH v OHIM, the General Court has refused to register the word mark TERRAEFFEKT MATT & GLOSS for “lacquers, in particular for the graphic industry” on the grounds that it was descriptive. Among other things, the court pointed out that the fact that TERRAEFFEKT was already registered as a CTM was not binding.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=00fb2ee9-215e-45bd-b3b5-f8f6f8dc9306</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=00fb2ee9-215e-45bd-b3b5-f8f6f8dc9306</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=00fb2ee9-215e-45bd-b3b5-f8f6f8dc9306#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>International procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Merchants should know the origin of the products they sell</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In The Polo/Lauren Company LP v Bustos, the Court of Appeals has ruled against the defendant in a case involving counterfeit Ralph Lauren clothes. Among other things, the court rejected the defendant's argument that he had acted in good faith and had been defrauded by the supplier of the goods.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=0c0b3409-8acb-49b3-8405-b759339ee3b9</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=0c0b3409-8acb-49b3-8405-b759339ee3b9</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=0c0b3409-8acb-49b3-8405-b759339ee3b9#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Counterfeiting</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Court considers whether consignment transaction results in trademark use</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In JAG Flocomponents NA v Archmetal Industries Corporation, the Federal Court has considered whether the delivery of goods from the Chinese manufacturer to the Canadian distributor, for sale on a consignment basis, effectively constituted use of a trademark in Canada. In doing so, the court made a distinction as to the nature of possession set out in Section 4 of the Trademarks Act.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=ded5d9c0-c7a1-487d-be3a-5c647ddd19a6</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=ded5d9c0-c7a1-487d-be3a-5c647ddd19a6</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=ded5d9c0-c7a1-487d-be3a-5c647ddd19a6#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Cancellation</category>
        <category>National procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Subscriber alert: a fully interactive digital version of WTR is now available</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The latest addition to the World Trademark Review platform is an interactive, digital version of the magazine, allowing subscribers to bookmark pages for easy reference, highlight passages of interest, add notes and search the entire issue for key terms. The service is now live and we would like to know what you think of it.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d761c4e9-7f9b-4f42-9bcd-54c4ed59fef8</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d761c4e9-7f9b-4f42-9bcd-54c4ed59fef8</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d761c4e9-7f9b-4f42-9bcd-54c4ed59fef8#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: New police report reveals enforcement trends</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Chilean police force specialized in IP crimes has published a report covering the period from June 2009 to May 2010. Among other things, the report states that the number of actions for the enforcement of trademark and other IP rights has increased consistently.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=3c496e24-aa5b-4c1f-8d4c-e9502c185c7f</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=3c496e24-aa5b-4c1f-8d4c-e9502c185c7f</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=3c496e24-aa5b-4c1f-8d4c-e9502c185c7f#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Studies/research</category>
        <category>National</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Ugg boots counterfeiters jailed for contempt of court</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc v Farley (No 8), the Federal Court of Australia has imposed prison sentences on three respondents, who were found to be in contempt of court. The respondents had repeatedly breached the court's orders in relation to the manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of counterfeit Ugg Australia boots.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=5f250d36-f16c-4e56-b5eb-7ef4f406ffdd</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=5f250d36-f16c-4e56-b5eb-7ef4f406ffdd</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=5f250d36-f16c-4e56-b5eb-7ef4f406ffdd#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Counterfeiting</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: OHIM decision upheld despite delay in dealing with proof of use request</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Kureha Corp v OHIM, the General Court has upheld a decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks KREMEZIN and KRENOSIN for pharmaceutical products. Among other things, the court considered whether the board's decision could be annulled based on the late submission of proof of existence of the earlier mark by the opponent.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=b4b7abeb-471a-4f82-954e-682a97c04df3</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=b4b7abeb-471a-4f82-954e-682a97c04df3</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=b4b7abeb-471a-4f82-954e-682a97c04df3#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>International procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Political machinations threaten core mission of EU trademarks office</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The European Union can be a very peculiar place. As readers of this blog will know, the community may soon add enforcement and anti-counterfeiting to the remit of its financially successful trademark registry, OHIM. For many, it is a strange proposal, and OHIM president Wubbo de Boer has now echoed trademark owners' fears that the idea may be underpinned by political and financial motivations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=24e4101b-2b80-4ad3-bc1a-0f1dd012f439</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=24e4101b-2b80-4ad3-bc1a-0f1dd012f439</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=24e4101b-2b80-4ad3-bc1a-0f1dd012f439#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>International</category>
        <category>Counterfeiting</category>
        <category>Supranational</category>
        <category>Government/policy</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Relative grounds of examination maintained</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Irish Patents Office has decided to continue to examine trademark applications on relative grounds. The office believes that, if it moves to a 'search and notify' system, marks that are not capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one undertaking from those of another would end up being registered, and this would compromise the integrity of the register.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d4ed407d-1748-4785-8f3a-ebb6c8733e43</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d4ed407d-1748-4785-8f3a-ebb6c8733e43</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d4ed407d-1748-4785-8f3a-ebb6c8733e43#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>National procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Reference to documents in foreign language does not comply with Rule 33(d)</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Johnson & Johnson v Obschestvo s ogranitchennoy, in a precedential opinion, the TTAB has ruled that responding to interrogatories by referring to documents produced in a foreign language did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d). The TTAB ordered that the applicant fully respond in writing, in English, to each interrogatory.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=9edc7696-4678-45cf-911f-c857d1f3409e</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=9edc7696-4678-45cf-911f-c857d1f3409e</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=9edc7696-4678-45cf-911f-c857d1f3409e#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>National procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Domain name with non-ASCII character transferred to owner of identical mark</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In CELIO France SAS v Hocini, a WIPO panel has ordered the transfer of the domain name 'célio.com' to CELIO France SAS, the owner of the CELIO mark. The decision demonstrates that registering a domain name containing a non-ASCII character, such as 'É', is insufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=09d37641-caac-4901-a2cb-95d5ed0619ac</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=09d37641-caac-4901-a2cb-95d5ed0619ac</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=09d37641-caac-4901-a2cb-95d5ed0619ac#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Onus and standard of proof in Section 41 appeals explored</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Sports Warehouse Inc v Fry Consulting Pty Ltd, the Federal Court has dismissed an appeal against a decision allowing an opposition to the registration of the mark TENNIS WAREHOUSE. Among other things, the court considered whether use of a mark in a domain name constitute use “as a trademark”. The court also examined the onus and the standard of proof in appeals based on Section 41 of the Trademarks Act.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=a16a79f9-2415-43a5-b8a0-9c3f06beaf60</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=a16a79f9-2415-43a5-b8a0-9c3f06beaf60</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=a16a79f9-2415-43a5-b8a0-9c3f06beaf60#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>National procedures</category>
        <category>Domain names</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Consumer Protection Act to benefit both mark owners and consumers</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Consumer Protection Act, which comes into full operation in October this year, contains important provisions relating to the use and registration of business names. In broad terms, it seeks to prevent the use of business names which may mislead consumers into thinking that one business is endorsed by, or associated with, another. The provisions of the act on business names should thus be welcomed by trademark owners.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=a7a8bb36-3348-4179-998d-6cc997e0574f</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=a7a8bb36-3348-4179-998d-6cc997e0574f</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=a7a8bb36-3348-4179-998d-6cc997e0574f#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Unfair use</category>
        <category>National</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Copyright cannot be invoked in opposition proceedings</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Padilla v OHIM, the General Court has upheld a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had dismissed an opposition filed by Eugenia Montero Padilla, the niece of famous composer José Padilla, against the registration of the trademark JOSE PADILLA. In doing so, the court considered what type of rights can be asserted in opposition proceedings.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=b169973d-5743-4b5c-a9d5-3a3687096609</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=b169973d-5743-4b5c-a9d5-3a3687096609</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=b169973d-5743-4b5c-a9d5-3a3687096609#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>International procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: &quot;Dialogue&quot; alone won't purge auction sites of counterfeits</title>
      <description><![CDATA[For auction sites, the removal of items from their listings dents their business models. The likes of eBay and Amazon Marketplace are publicly in agreement with brand owners that the deletion of fake goods from auction sites is in everyone's best interests. While this position is welcomed by brand owners, a way through the issue is more elusive than cybersquatters' WHOIS data.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d67a4b14-4c8b-4722-bbca-1a9763577202</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d67a4b14-4c8b-4722-bbca-1a9763577202</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d67a4b14-4c8b-4722-bbca-1a9763577202#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>International</category>
        <category>Counterfeiting</category>
        <category>Internet issues</category>
        <category>Policy</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Circumstances in which resellers can use third-party mark as keyword outlined</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Portakabin Ltd v Primakabin BV, the ECJ has provided guidance on the use of third-party trademarks as keywords to advertise websites selling genuine goods under the marks. Among other things, the ECJ held that the national courts must find that there is a legitimate reason to oppose use of the mark where the reseller has removed the mark from genuine goods and replaced it with its own label.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=6ebc419e-fe17-462a-af41-7bd9f3d5c862</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=6ebc419e-fe17-462a-af41-7bd9f3d5c862</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=6ebc419e-fe17-462a-af41-7bd9f3d5c862#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Keywords</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Chef held to have superior rights in name of restaurant</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Levi v Mamtakey 10 Ltd, the patents and trademarks adjudicator has ruled that, under certain circumstances, the name of a restaurant can be associated with the chef of the restaurant, rather than the restaurant itself. As a result, the chef might have superior rights in the name of the restaurant.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=96de09a5-514b-4d6f-a8ca-4c5cc4863831</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=96de09a5-514b-4d6f-a8ca-4c5cc4863831</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=96de09a5-514b-4d6f-a8ca-4c5cc4863831#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>National procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Use of identical mark is circumstantial evidence of dilution</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Visa International Service Association v JSL Corporation, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favour of Visa International Service Association with respect to its claim that use of the mark eVISA diluted its famous VISA mark. The decision suggests that, if fame is shown, and if the marks are identical or “effectively identical”, likelihood of dilution is almost presumed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=6b627b2f-aa89-4ac2-8e97-1b1d2eae07f3</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=6b627b2f-aa89-4ac2-8e97-1b1d2eae07f3</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=6b627b2f-aa89-4ac2-8e97-1b1d2eae07f3#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Dilution</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: 3D pen shape mark is refused registration</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Prodir SA v Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, the Swiss Administrative Court has upheld a decision of the Federal Institute of Intellectual Property in which the latter had refused to register a 3D mark consisting of the shape of a pen for services in Class 35 on the grounds that it was descriptive.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=e753cd5f-6c38-4458-a862-f840ecfda748</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=e753cd5f-6c38-4458-a862-f840ecfda748</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=e753cd5f-6c38-4458-a862-f840ecfda748#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>National procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Your last chance to delay the gTLD trademark time bomb (probably)</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Trademark owners concerned that the forthcoming expansion of the gTLD space will leave their rights open to infringement are rapidly running out of time. ICANN will soon close the latest round of comments - expected by many observers to be the last for a draft applicant guidebook (DAG).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=53b91ed4-f6e3-47c0-8a29-e7d320d1ce40</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=53b91ed4-f6e3-47c0-8a29-e7d320d1ce40</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=53b91ed4-f6e3-47c0-8a29-e7d320d1ce40#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
        <category>Domain names</category>
        <category>Government/policy</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Importance of adequate reasoning highlighted in third MATRATZEN Case</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Matratzen Concord GmbH v OHIM, the General Court has annulled a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had upheld an opposition against the registration of the mark MATRATZEN. The court reiterated that a statement of reasons must disclose, in a clear and unequivocal manner, the reasoning followed by OHIM.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=f25c1f2d-c36e-4f20-b287-cc8fb6e99986</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=f25c1f2d-c36e-4f20-b287-cc8fb6e99986</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=f25c1f2d-c36e-4f20-b287-cc8fb6e99986#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>International procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Injunction against hypermarket chain welcomed by mark owners</title>
      <description><![CDATA[A Romanian court has granted SC Sprider Stores SA's request for an injunction preventing SC Real Hypermarket Romania SRL, a large hypermarket chain with approximately 25 stores in Romania, from infringing the well-known SPRIDER marks.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=047cf401-d96c-44c3-952f-38f565c90c9e</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=047cf401-d96c-44c3-952f-38f565c90c9e</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=047cf401-d96c-44c3-952f-38f565c90c9e#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Unfair use</category>
        <category>Parallel imports</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Shadow companies amendments to become law</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Legislative Council has passed the Companies (Amendment) Bill 2010. The most eagerly awaited changes for IP practitioners and brand owners relate to the issue of shadow companies. Previously, if a shadow company ignored the registrar’s direction, nothing happened. However, from the bill’s implementation, the registrar will be able to substitute the company’s name with its registration number.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=e83a0c00-4103-4019-bd0a-6cfad6bb787a</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=e83a0c00-4103-4019-bd0a-6cfad6bb787a</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=e83a0c00-4103-4019-bd0a-6cfad6bb787a#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Unfair use</category>
        <category>National</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Chinese search giant sells keywords to fake pharma</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Owing to several high-profile court cases against Google, keywords are a major bone of contention for trademark owners in the United States and Europe. But can the same be said of other jurisdictions, where different search engines dominate? How about China? Recent allegations that suggest China's premier search engine is complicit in the promotion of counterfeit medicines paint a worrying picture.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=c61a3c40-5651-4306-bad7-54023d329654</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=c61a3c40-5651-4306-bad7-54023d329654</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=c61a3c40-5651-4306-bad7-54023d329654#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Brand strategy</category>
        <category>International</category>
        <category>Counterfeiting</category>
        <category>Keywords</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Design for conference unit held to lack individual character</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Shenzhen Taiden Industrial Co Ltd v OHIM, the General Court has held that a registered Community design for "units for conference systems" was invalid. The court found that the design lacked individual character, as it produced the same overall impression on the informed user as an earlier design.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=9c310f5a-28de-4a18-8624-1a1894d5ade4</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=9c310f5a-28de-4a18-8624-1a1894d5ade4</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=9c310f5a-28de-4a18-8624-1a1894d5ade4#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Design</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Transfer of domain name to foreign party upheld</title>
      <description><![CDATA[A Korean district court has held that the domain name 'celluarsouth.com' had been registered and was being used in bad faith. Among other things, the court found that the domain name was confusingly similar to the trademark CELLULAR SOUTH, which is owned by a US company. The mark owner had previously obtained the transfer of the domain name under the UDRP.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=37033659-fc90-4cc7-bd68-19b7a712ef39</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=37033659-fc90-4cc7-bd68-19b7a712ef39</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=37033659-fc90-4cc7-bd68-19b7a712ef39#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Supreme Court affirms injunction against use of 'Belle' for fashion magazine</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Venos Fashion DR Ltd v Hachette Filipacchi Presse SA, the Supreme Court has upheld a decision of the Tel Aviv District Court in which the latter had enjoined the defendant from publishing and distributing periodicals under the name Belle due to its confusing similarity with the ELLE mark. However, the Supreme Court allowed the publication of the second issue of the magazine under the name BelleMode.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=68369ee1-4e8d-4a48-b4b6-ad6fd38f1675</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=68369ee1-4e8d-4a48-b4b6-ad6fd38f1675</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=68369ee1-4e8d-4a48-b4b6-ad6fd38f1675#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Microsoft, Yahoo! and others face possible '.co' infringers</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Last week we learnt that some of the world's biggest brands have bought in to the '.co' domain, either as part of a new domain name strategy or merely to protect their trademark rights from misuse. Now that the Colombian registry behind the widely popular domain has opened up for general availability, we know that trademark owners such as Yahoo! and Microsoft are facing possibly infringing uses of their trademarks - in what may become the most valuable domain since '.com'.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=1c18c854-7a4e-4bc1-a1f0-a43f04e9b34e</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=1c18c854-7a4e-4bc1-a1f0-a43f04e9b34e</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=1c18c854-7a4e-4bc1-a1f0-a43f04e9b34e#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Brand strategy</category>
        <category>International</category>
        <category>Cybersquatting</category>
        <category>Typosquatting</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: ECJ refers surname case back to General Court</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Becker v Harman International Industries Inc, the ECJ has upheld an appeal filed by Barbara Becker, the former wife of German tennis star Boris Becker, against a decision of the General Court in which the latter had held that there was a likelihood of confusion between BARBARA BECKER and BECKER. The ECJ set aside the decision of the General Court and referred the case back to it.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=72b36700-0ef3-4a8b-bff0-9f5a5632e2aa</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=72b36700-0ef3-4a8b-bff0-9f5a5632e2aa</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=72b36700-0ef3-4a8b-bff0-9f5a5632e2aa#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>International procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Use of VIRGIN mark held to be contrary to law</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Virgin Enterprises Limited v Virgin International Pty Ltd, the delegate of the registrar of trademarks has upheld an opposition filed by Virgin Enterprises Limited against the registration of the stylised trademark VIRGIN. Among other things, the delegate held that, as the applicant’s use of the mark without the necessary regulatory approval was unlawful, the relevant intended use would also have been unlawful.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=019d184b-d59e-4a3a-8fe6-119221ef684e</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=019d184b-d59e-4a3a-8fe6-119221ef684e</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=019d184b-d59e-4a3a-8fe6-119221ef684e#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>National procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Criminal penalties for retailers of infringing goods to be reduced</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The latest amendments to the Spanish Criminal Code, which will enter into force on December 23 2010, have been published in the Official State Gazette. Under the amendments, there will be a considerable reduction in the criminal sanctions imposed on unauthorized retailers of goods protected by IP rights and retailers of counterfeit products of low monetary value.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=3808f7be-df88-465c-a97f-ce2b98368d1f</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=3808f7be-df88-465c-a97f-ce2b98368d1f</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=3808f7be-df88-465c-a97f-ce2b98368d1f#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Counterfeiting</category>
        <category>National</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Invalid registration certificate cannot form basis of infringement claim</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Ginvera Marketing Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Tohtonku Sdn Bhd, the High Court has ruled that the plaintiff’s certificate of registration was invalid, as it had not been issued in compliance with the provisions of the Trademarks Act 1976 and the Trademarks Regulations 1997. Therefore, the certificate could not be used as a basis for a claim for trademark infringement.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=412abd75-f748-4901-9b37-bd1b93880797</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=412abd75-f748-4901-9b37-bd1b93880797</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=412abd75-f748-4901-9b37-bd1b93880797#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
        <category>Passing off</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Opposition sustained due to lack of good-faith intent to use</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In The Saul Zaentz Company d/b/a Tolkien Enterprises v Bumb, in a precedential opinion, the TTAB has held that the applicant's intent-to-use application for the mark MITHRIL for use with jewellery was void ab initio because the applicant lacked the requisite good-faith intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application date.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=3ca5e8ca-9028-4002-ac00-1e0ddfabc039</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=3ca5e8ca-9028-4002-ac00-1e0ddfabc039</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=3ca5e8ca-9028-4002-ac00-1e0ddfabc039#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>National procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: OHIM: our &quot;radical&quot; oppositions backlog overhaul is working</title>
      <description><![CDATA[While OHIM's mountains of cash and unconventional governance provoke headlines, CTM users have had a more practical concern of late. The agency's looming backlog of opposition decisions started shortly after the registration of the first CTM 13 years ago, and has swollen every year since. The director of the trademarks department calls it a "moving target". However, according to new statistics, OHIM's aim is closing in.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=92ca637c-2687-4537-825b-0462cd27bd5b</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=92ca637c-2687-4537-825b-0462cd27bd5b</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=92ca637c-2687-4537-825b-0462cd27bd5b#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>Supranational</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Customs report sends strong signal to errant IP owners</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Legal Department of the Chinese Customs General Administration has circulated a report called the “Notice on Re-release of Goods under the IP Rights Border Protection Measures”. The notice highlights problems created when IP owners fail to respond to reports of suspect shipments or to manage information on authorized suppliers. Customs may no longer assist IP owners that consistently do this.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=b7078d73-0370-40ef-8206-7d07982a1e43</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=b7078d73-0370-40ef-8206-7d07982a1e43</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=b7078d73-0370-40ef-8206-7d07982a1e43#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>National</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Failure to prove abandonment and fraud results in denial of cancellation</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Toufigh v Persona Parfum Inc, in a precedential opinion, the TTAB has made it clear that a petitioner seeking to cancel a trademark registration will be required to prove its case, even where the registrant fails to respond to discovery and to put in any evidence or testimony.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=be10ba1e-a3c6-4d65-a49b-7aa20027a67f</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=be10ba1e-a3c6-4d65-a49b-7aa20027a67f</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=be10ba1e-a3c6-4d65-a49b-7aa20027a67f#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Threat to market replica vacuum cleaner amounts to passing off</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Numatic International Ltd v Qualtex UK Ltd, the High Court has held that the threat to market and sell a vacuum cleaner in the shape of a tub, with a domed black lid, amounted to passing off in the sense that consumers would be deceived into thinking that the product was one of the well-known Henry vacuum cleaners.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=ac40e701-1957-4001-be59-62a5da744b0c</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=ac40e701-1957-4001-be59-62a5da744b0c</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=ac40e701-1957-4001-be59-62a5da744b0c#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Passing off</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Registrability of mark determined based on EU case law</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In a case involving the mark MAXIMUMASP, the deputy commissioner has held that, where a mark consists of two common words, registration will be granted only if the applicant can prove that the combination of these words creates a meaning that departs from their ordinary meaning, or that it is unique in linguistic terms. The deputy commissioner relied on the decisions of the ECJ in BABY-DRY, POSTKANTOOR and BIOMILD.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=063b61a8-a4af-4b81-a2f5-e489cd0cb935</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=063b61a8-a4af-4b81-a2f5-e489cd0cb935</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=063b61a8-a4af-4b81-a2f5-e489cd0cb935#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>National procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Opposition dismissed due to failure to prove notoriety of earlier marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Valigeria Roncato SpA v OHIM, the General Court has upheld a decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had dismissed Valigeria Roncato SpA's opposition to the registration of the mark CARLO RONCATO by Roncato Srl. Among other things, the court held that the board had correctly found that Valigeria Roncato had failed to prove that its earlier RONCATO marks were notorious.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=03a12343-0b51-47b8-bb99-cf34de9f5749</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=03a12343-0b51-47b8-bb99-cf34de9f5749</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=03a12343-0b51-47b8-bb99-cf34de9f5749#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>International procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Question of distinctiveness appreciated by Federal Court</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Scott Paper Limited v Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, Scott Paper Limited has successfully appealed a decision rendered by the Trademarks Opposition Board in which the latter had refused Scott Paper’s application to register a daisy flower pattern design in association with bathroom tissue due to lack of distinctiveness.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=a9475f5b-76f3-4a32-bab1-ab3ba1c94a54</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=a9475f5b-76f3-4a32-bab1-ab3ba1c94a54</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=a9475f5b-76f3-4a32-bab1-ab3ba1c94a54#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>National procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Did ICANN just imply that the new gTLDs process will snub trademarks?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Here's some exclusive news from ICANN, and trademark owners will not like it. The organisation has indicated that the trademark concerns surrounding new gTLDs will not be put to bed in time for the board's retreat in September. This will alarm mark owners because Peter Dengate Thrush, ICANN's chair, has told WTR: "If the issues are not cleared up by September then we'll be forced to make some decisions. If the community can't decide, we'll step in and force it into some sort of arrangement or decision."]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=b41805db-d4bc-4268-92e9-72bffbd12662</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=b41805db-d4bc-4268-92e9-72bffbd12662</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=b41805db-d4bc-4268-92e9-72bffbd12662#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category>
        <category>Cybersquatting</category>
        <category>Domain names</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: ICANN responds to questions over potential trademark rebuff</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ICANN has responded to the blog post WTR published yesterday that speculated whether the board would close the chapter on trademark protection mechanisms in the new gTLD programme without full analysis of the latest round of comments. The body has now stated that the board will receive the analysis in time for its September retreat.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=384ad833-879c-4f80-9b04-d05b7e4c9226</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=384ad833-879c-4f80-9b04-d05b7e4c9226</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=384ad833-879c-4f80-9b04-d05b7e4c9226#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category>
        <category>Cybersquatting</category>
        <category>Domain names</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Filing of federal application is &quot;protected act&quot; under California anti-SLAPP law</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Mindys Cosmetics Inc v Dakar, the US Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant Kia Kamran’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike plaintiff Mindys Cosmetics Inc's claims for malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment and conversion. Among other things, the court held that Mindys had demonstrated a "reasonable probability" of prevailing on its claims.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=00bd48fa-fba4-4474-b9a6-bd3e00311d67</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=00bd48fa-fba4-4474-b9a6-bd3e00311d67</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=00bd48fa-fba4-4474-b9a6-bd3e00311d67#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Other issues </category>
        <category>Registration</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Letter held to constitute a response, not a threat of infringement proceedings</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Best Buy Co Inc v Worldwide Sales Corporation Espana SL, the Chancery Division of the High Court has dismissed an action brought by US corporation Best Buy Co Inc and its UK subsidiary under Section 21 of the Trademarks Act. The claimants had argued that a letter sent by the defendant's lawyers was an unwarranted threat to launch trademark infringement proceedings against them.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=aa2a0699-7c63-4917-a182-a424b454fde2</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=aa2a0699-7c63-4917-a182-a424b454fde2</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=aa2a0699-7c63-4917-a182-a424b454fde2#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Other issues </category>
        <category>Infringement</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Interim rules on copyright protection for industrial designs contradict EU law</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Advocate General Bot has delivered his opinion in Flos SpA v Semeraro Casa e Famiglia SpA, a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Specialised Division of the Court of Milan concerning the interpretation of the Community Design Directive. The advocate general expressed the view that the Italian interim rules on copyright protection for industrial designs were inconsistent with the directive.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=98dccad9-036a-4eff-be4b-0235b635413f</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=98dccad9-036a-4eff-be4b-0235b635413f</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=98dccad9-036a-4eff-be4b-0235b635413f#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Design</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Board erred in restricting likelihood of confusion assessment to single premise</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In mPAY24 GmbH v OHIM, the General Court has annulled a decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM in opposition proceedings against the registration of the mark MPAY. The board, in its global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, should have assessed not only the distinctive character of the earlier MPAY24 mark, but also the degree of similarity between the goods and services at issue, and the degree of similarity between the marks.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=09c61640-609e-47cf-b000-e117d55ea493</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=09c61640-609e-47cf-b000-e117d55ea493</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=09c61640-609e-47cf-b000-e117d55ea493#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>International procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: New requirements for online retailers will 'change game' for mark owners</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In order to protect and promote the growth of China’s online marketplace, the SAIC has issued the Interim Regulations on the Management of the Internet Merchandise Transactions and Related Services. Beginning July 1 2010, all online retailers, including B2C and C2C retailers, run by a natural person must register the person’s real name, address and identification information with the third-party e-commerce platform.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=930b1269-957b-4192-9d49-a061f0c28918</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=930b1269-957b-4192-9d49-a061f0c28918</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=930b1269-957b-4192-9d49-a061f0c28918#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Internet issues</category>
        <category>National</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Avoiding Bratz: cross-company understanding of IP necessary</title>
      <description><![CDATA[One thing that can be learnt from the dispute between Mattel and MGA Entertainment over the Bratz doll brand is that not every employee of any given company understands IP rights. Knowledge of intellectual property runs through the veins of some companies - WTR recently heard from Siemens about that corporation's IP-aware 400,000 employees (full details will be published this autumn). For others, fostering this sort of understanding is trickier.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=5bda20b9-7f1b-49c8-a5a8-85eb59df4526</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=5bda20b9-7f1b-49c8-a5a8-85eb59df4526</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=5bda20b9-7f1b-49c8-a5a8-85eb59df4526#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Business strategy</category>
        <category>Brand management</category>
        
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DAILY: Supreme Administrative Court considers issue of opponent's legal interest</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Supreme Administrative Court has held that, under Article 246 of the Law on Industrial Property, an opponent is not required to provide evidence of its legal interest, both at the time of filing the opposition and during opposition proceedings before the Polish Patent Office, even if the rights holder considers the opposition to be groundless.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d242a01a-e5ed-4e5a-af67-00e6f68c6837</link>
      <guid>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d242a01a-e5ed-4e5a-af67-00e6f68c6837</guid>
      <author>(WTR Daily)</author>
      <comments>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=d242a01a-e5ed-4e5a-af67-00e6f68c6837#comments</comments>
      <category>Daily</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
        <category>National procedures</category>
        
    </item>
    
    
</channel>
</rss>
