<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>World Trademark Review - Updates and analysis</title>
    <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/</link>
    <description>Latest updates and analysis from WTR magazine.</description>
    <copyright>Globe White Page Ltd 2003 - 2010</copyright>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <managingEditor>tlittle@worldtrademarkreview.com  (Trevor Little)</managingEditor>
    <lastBuildDate>29/07/2010 00:00:00</lastBuildDate>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
    

    
    <item>
      <title>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>09c61640-609e-47cf-b000-e117d55ea493</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>930b1269-957b-4192-9d49-a061f0c28918</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category><category>Internet issues</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>d242a01a-e5ed-4e5a-af67-00e6f68c6837</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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 &quot;reasonable probability&quot; 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>00bd48fa-fba4-4474-b9a6-bd3e00311d67</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Registration</category><category>Other issues</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>98dccad9-036a-4eff-be4b-0235b635413f</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>aa2a0699-7c63-4917-a182-a424b454fde2</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Other issues</category><category>Infringement</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>03a12343-0b51-47b8-bb99-cf34de9f5749</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>a9475f5b-76f3-4a32-bab1-ab3ba1c94a54</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>063b61a8-a4af-4b81-a2f5-e489cd0cb935</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>be10ba1e-a3c6-4d65-a49b-7aa20027a67f</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category></category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>ac40e701-1957-4001-be59-62a5da744b0c</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Passing off</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>b7078d73-0370-40ef-8206-7d07982a1e43</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>3808f7be-df88-465c-a97f-ce2b98368d1f</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category><category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>412abd75-f748-4901-9b37-bd1b93880797</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Passing off</category><category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>3ca5e8ca-9028-4002-ac00-1e0ddfabc039</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>72b36700-0ef3-4a8b-bff0-9f5a5632e2aa</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>019d184b-d59e-4a3a-8fe6-119221ef684e</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>68369ee1-4e8d-4a48-b4b6-ad6fd38f1675</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>37033659-fc90-4cc7-bd68-19b7a712ef39</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>e83a0c00-4103-4019-bd0a-6cfad6bb787a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Unfair use</category><category>National</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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 &quot;units for conference systems&quot; 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>9c310f5a-28de-4a18-8624-1a1894d5ade4</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>f25c1f2d-c36e-4f20-b287-cc8fb6e99986</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>047cf401-d96c-44c3-952f-38f565c90c9e</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Unfair use</category><category>Parallel imports</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>e753cd5f-6c38-4458-a862-f840ecfda748</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>96de09a5-514b-4d6f-a8ca-4c5cc4863831</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>6ebc419e-fe17-462a-af41-7bd9f3d5c862</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Keywords</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>6b627b2f-aa89-4ac2-8e97-1b1d2eae07f3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Dilution</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>a7a8bb36-3348-4179-998d-6cc997e0574f</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Unfair use</category><category>National</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>a16a79f9-2415-43a5-b8a0-9c3f06beaf60</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category><category>National procedures</category><category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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 Jos&#233; 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>b169973d-5743-4b5c-a9d5-3a3687096609</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Reference to documents in foreign language does not comply with Rule 33(d)</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Johnson &amp; 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>9edc7696-4678-45cf-911f-c857d1f3409e</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>d4ed407d-1748-4785-8f3a-ebb6c8733e43</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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 'c&#233;lio.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 '&#201;', 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>09d37641-caac-4901-a2cb-95d5ed0619ac</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>5f250d36-f16c-4e56-b5eb-7ef4f406ffdd</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>3c496e24-aa5b-4c1f-8d4c-e9502c185c7f</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Studies/research</category><category>National</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>b4b7abeb-471a-4f82-954e-682a97c04df3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>ded5d9c0-c7a1-487d-be3a-5c647ddd19a6</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>0c0b3409-8acb-49b3-8405-b759339ee3b9</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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 &amp; 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>00fb2ee9-215e-45bd-b3b5-f8f6f8dc9306</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>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>d99eb134-0bf5-4996-8fdb-530e708cd3d3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>No likelihood of confusion between BUTLERS marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In The Butler’s Pantry (Manufacturing) Limited v The Irish Chocolate Company Limited, the acting controller has dismissed an opposition filed by the owner of various BUTLERS marks against the registration of THE BUTLER’S PANTRY. Among other things, the acting controller held that the opponent had failed to show how use of the mark applied for might undermine its capacity to identify exclusively its goods.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=AB7E0212-6A61-406F-A037-F1BE5600FB1C</link>
      <guid>ab7e0212-6a61-406f-a037-f1be5600fb1c</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Campaign to promote '.mx' domain name registrations launched</title>
      <description><![CDATA[NIC Mexico has launched the &quot;Let's Be More '.mx'&quot; campaign to promote '.mx' domain name registrations. As part of the campaign, NIC Mexico is offering domain name registrations directly under the '.mx' extension at a reduced fee. It is likely that some third parties will see this as an opportunity to take advantage of any available domain names that may infringe trademark rights.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=97A3741A-439D-4BCC-81FC-83195A67935B</link>
      <guid>97a3741a-439d-4bcc-81fc-83195a67935b</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Draft trademark law sent to Parliament</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Lebanese Ministry of Economy has sent a draft Law on the Protection of Industrial, Trade and Service Marks to the Lebanese Parliament. The draft law introduces fundamental changes in terms of the definition of 'trademarks', registration, cancellation and enforcement. Among other things, it proposes to change from a deposit system to a more substantive examination system.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=52E7C31E-CB63-4D57-876E-93F951EF3C23</link>
      <guid>52e7c31e-cb63-4d57-876e-93f951ef3c23</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Federal Court rejects transcendence of fame argument</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Wrangler Apparel Corporation v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership, the Federal Court has upheld a decision of the Trademarks Opposition Board rejecting Wrangler Apparel Corporation's opposition to the registration of the mark WRANGLER for beer. Among other things, the court held that WRANGLER's fame did not transcend the clothing market to cover beer.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=F507AACD-1510-4A81-9ED6-28D7E670B198</link>
      <guid>f507aacd-1510-4a81-9ed6-28d7e670b198</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Relevant public will attach little significance to meaning of descriptive words</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In CM Capital Markets Holding SA v OHIM, the General Court has rejected CM Capital Markets Holding SA's oppositions to the registration of two marks including the words 'carbon capital markets'. Among other things, the court held that the relevant public would attach little significance to the meaning of the words ‘capital’ and ‘markets’, since they are descriptive of the services at issue.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=473FFB0F-07B4-4AAB-942B-343A421A4116</link>
      <guid>473ffb0f-07b4-4aab-942b-343a421a4116</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Surname preceded by initials sufficient to suggest personal name</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In In re PJ Fitzpatrick Inc, in a precedential decision, the TTAB has held that a surname preceded by two initials should not be barred from registration as being simply a surname. The refusal to register the mark PJ FITZPATRICK INC on the grounds that it was primarily merely a surname was thus reversed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=B9F78F7B-C04A-4950-9677-CDC29B0A00B3</link>
      <guid>b9f78f7b-c04a-4950-9677-cdc29b0a00b3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Counterfeiter sentenced to one year's imprisonment</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In State of Israel v Hammuda, the defendant has been sentenced to one year's imprisonment for trademark counterfeiting under the Israeli Trademarks Ordinance and forgery under the Penal Law. This sentence departs from the usual practice in trademark counterfeiting cases, thereby reflecting the gravity of the defendant's conduct.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=D4BDEC7F-CD38-46C7-8CDF-6DA0E5C24F1A</link>
      <guid>d4bdec7f-cd38-46c7-8cdf-6da0e5c24f1a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>New trade name for Armenian brandy approved</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Armenian government has approved the name Arbun as the new trade name for Armenian brandy. The labels on bottles of Armenian brandy will bear the words 'Brandy' and 'Arbun' for a period of five years from the coming into force of the government's decision. Armenian brandy used to be marketed under the name Armenian cognac.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=C02DAD30-C49C-4641-98EB-FBF3070C7110</link>
      <guid>c02dad30-c49c-4641-98eb-fbf3070c7110</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Government/policy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>'.za' domain name space to undergo major overhaul</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Sweeping changes are being introduced with a view to harmonizing the registration and management of domain names across all of the South African domain name extensions. As part of the proposed changes, any party that wishes to offer domain name registrations under '.co.za' will have to undergo a registrar accreditation process.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=DFE8B0CD-28B6-4009-B1E0-9819FBA23C38</link>
      <guid>dfe8b0cd-28b6-4009-b1e0-9819fba23c38</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Decision seemingly expands scope of protection of pharmaceutical marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Bial-Portela &amp; Ca SA v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, the Opposition Division of OHIM has held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks AZULIB and AZURIL for goods in Class 5. Interestingly, the Opposition Division found that &quot;fungicides&quot; were identical to &quot;pharmaceutical preparations&quot;.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=33814352-FDC1-41EC-B97E-F628CDA844EA</link>
      <guid>33814352-fdc1-41ec-b97e-f628cda844ea</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>New federal dilution law supports finding of tarnishment in sex toy shop case</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In V-Secret Catalogue Inc v Moseley, a trademark dilution case that was the subject of an earlier US Supreme Court ruling and of a new federal dilution law, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has enjoined a sex toy shop from using the name Victor's Little Secret.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=82E4FF32-AD41-4320-92AD-C2BA0BE8CCBC</link>
      <guid>82e4ff32-ad41-4320-92ad-c2ba0be8ccbc</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Dilution</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Nice Classification adopted in its entirety</title>
      <description><![CDATA[With effect from May 20 2010, the Indian Trademark Rules on the classification of goods and services have been amended to provide for 45 classes, so as to conform with the Nice Classification. In order to achieve this, the former Class 42 has been sub-divided into four classes. However, this development has raised several concerns.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=8A596DF0-F0DC-4BA7-B984-A26A75446A51</link>
      <guid>8a596df0-f0dc-4ba7-b984-a26a75446a51</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Parliament adopts five draft IP laws</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina has adopted five draft laws in the field of intellectual property. Among other things, the Draft Law on Trademarks abolishes the practice of substantive examination and introduces an opposition procedure. The draft laws are expected to enter into force by the end of the year.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=80F5A462-0A4F-4D5E-83B8-8B18F0D0C3E1</link>
      <guid>80f5a462-0a4f-4d5e-83b8-8b18f0d0c3e1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Geographical indications/appellations of origin</category><category>National procedures</category><category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>London Olympics Association Right plays role in cybersquatting case</title>
      <description><![CDATA[A WIPO panel has ordered the transfer of the domain name 'mylondon2012.com' to The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Ltd. This case is significant in that it is based on the London Olympics Association Right - a sui generis statutory right under the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 - and on trademark rights.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=D4B39866-C13E-40AE-8F49-3455B04B0D39</link>
      <guid>d4b39866-c13e-40ae-8f49-3455b04b0d39</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Trademark infringement – is there an app for that?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Trademark infringement – is there an app for that?]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=FEB576D9-D796-4347-B180-B7AFB368C3A1</link>
      <guid>feb576d9-d796-4347-b180-b7afb368c3a1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Brand</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Taking the lead on cybersquatting?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Taking the lead on cybersquatting?]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=130C09EA-54EC-45A9-B93E-679055624F46</link>
      <guid>130c09ea-54ec-45a9-b93e-679055624f46</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category></category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: MEP wades into debate on genuine use of the CTM</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: MEP wades into debate on genuine use of the CTM]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=83074651-895D-45D3-8702-2A23BF78E40A</link>
      <guid>83074651-895d-45d3-8702-2a23bf78e40a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International</category><category>IP offices</category><category>Enforcement</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Kurian hits out at rumours over reorganization of Indian IPO</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Kurian hits out at rumours over reorganization of Indian IPO]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=75167408-9BF5-47E0-B142-96A916545309</link>
      <guid>75167408-9bf5-47e0-b142-96a916545309</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>IP offices</category><category>National</category><category>Government/policy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=BCE0032D-6F1E-4109-AF0E-B40B0A77E0E4</link>
      <guid>bce0032d-6f1e-4109-af0e-b40b0a77e0e4</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trade dress</category><category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=6EDEC18C-F507-4D01-9B07-AEB91C19118B</link>
      <guid>6edec18c-f507-4d01-9b07-aeb91c19118b</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trade dress</category><category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=09AD9DB3-17BF-4185-9F9B-2FA9FFE91CF5</link>
      <guid>09ad9db3-17bf-4185-9f9b-2fa9ffe91cf5</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trade dress</category><category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=42EF12E5-DAF0-4BDF-85C5-37FE04285B26</link>
      <guid>42ef12e5-daf0-4bdf-85c5-37fe04285b26</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trade dress</category><category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=237F3D4C-14D6-4682-8DDA-7B2E3EA4EE1C</link>
      <guid>237f3d4c-14d6-4682-8dda-7b2e3ea4ee1c</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trade dress</category><category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=BAC7611C-307F-4C02-97A1-C059019ACE53</link>
      <guid>bac7611c-307f-4c02-97a1-c059019ace53</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trade dress</category><category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Taking to the streets – lessons in anti-counterfeiting</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Taking to the streets – lessons in anti-counterfeiting]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=8ACDE55B-A081-4219-98E8-CEC974301C47</link>
      <guid>8acde55b-a081-4219-98e8-cec974301c47</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Enforcement</category><category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=09408F46-7509-490A-BEDD-ACA6914D5084</link>
      <guid>09408f46-7509-490a-bedd-aca6914d5084</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trade dress</category><category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=71BCCABF-AD58-4512-9B4E-FA1BC8ECC761</link>
      <guid>71bccabf-ad58-4512-9b4e-fa1bc8ecc761</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trade dress</category><category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Protecting your good name in China</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Protecting your good name in China]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=CABE5F61-04A7-4AD7-8981-3A2E949350CC</link>
      <guid>cabe5f61-04a7-4ad7-8981-3a2e949350cc</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Registration</category><category>National procedures</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Trademark acquisitions – time to do your homework</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Trademark acquisitions – time to do your homework]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=D5EF2A1F-1C9B-483E-86D7-06107B4ECC84</link>
      <guid>d5ef2a1f-1c9b-483e-86d7-06107b4ecc84</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Brand value</category><category>Business strategy</category><category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Brand</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Dental practice logo held to be confusingly similar to Red Cross emblem</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In R&#248;de Kors v AAAA T&#248;yen Tannlegevakt AS, the Supreme Court has held that the logo of AAAA T&#248;yen Tannlegevakt AS, a dental practice, could easily be confused with the emblem of the Norwegian Red Cross, in violation of Section 328(2)(c) of the General Civil Penal Code. It is the first time that the court has considered this provision.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=998B89D8-ECBD-4610-BDD1-D0826061CAA9</link>
      <guid>998b89d8-ecbd-4610-bdd1-d0826061caa9</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Nickname may constitute legitimate interest in registering domain name</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Sandro Andy v Balzarin, Sandro Andy, a French fashion company, has failed to obtain the transfer of the domain name 'sandro.com' under the UDRP. Among other things, the WIPO panel accepted the respondent's argument that he had a legitimate interest in registering the domain name, as it corresponded to his nickname Sandro.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=453110A9-FB3C-4831-9444-F01C7B71299F</link>
      <guid>453110a9-fb3c-4831-9444-f01c7b71299f</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Back to basics: converting your brand for a Chinese audience</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Back to basics: converting your brand for a Chinese audience]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=4047BDEE-3CC2-4404-B911-0F40E4C89195</link>
      <guid>4047bdee-3cc2-4404-b911-0f40e4c89195</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Brand management</category><category>Brand strategy</category><category>Brand</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=760E4D9C-CBFE-45EA-8143-08213F54B252</link>
      <guid>760e4d9c-cbfe-45ea-8143-08213f54b252</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trade dress</category><category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: UK Court of Appeal slams ECJ stance</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: UK Court of Appeal slams ECJ stance]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=D1057942-ED38-4467-AB7C-D2F5359EEAA1</link>
      <guid>d1057942-ed38-4467-ab7c-d2f5359eeaa1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Other issues</category><category>Enforcement</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Useful guidance provided with regard to evidence of use of a mark</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Atlas Transport GmbH v OHIM, the General Court has overturned a decision of Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in relation to an application for the revocation of a Community trademark on the grounds of non-use. The decision confirms that a relatively small amount of evidence of use will be sufficient to validate a registration attacked on the grounds of non-use.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=B48311F9-6589-407F-9819-702945D2B28B</link>
      <guid>b48311f9-6589-407f-9819-702945d2b28b</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: A great deal more than tea at this party</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: A great deal more than tea at this party]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=5E2BF7A0-2C64-4468-A0E0-AB36DA29ED45</link>
      <guid>5e2bf7a0-2c64-4468-a0e0-ab36da29ed45</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Other issues</category><category>In-house issues</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: A web of confusion: AdWords clarity still needed</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: A web of confusion: AdWords clarity still needed]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=3DE8421C-FEC8-4061-90A7-E7024B73BC45</link>
      <guid>3de8421c-fec8-4061-90a7-e7024b73bc45</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Keywords</category><category>Internet issues</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Global view</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Global view]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=4C553763-E7F0-47A4-B2D0-F1424AD86D7A</link>
      <guid>4c553763-e7f0-47a4-b2d0-f1424ad86d7a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Government/policy</category><category>International</category><category>International procedures</category><category>National procedures</category><category>Enforcement</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Industry Awards 2010</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Industry Awards 2010]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=AE490AB6-F3EC-4F15-A89F-B10F4E08578F</link>
      <guid>ae490ab6-f3ec-4f15-a89f-b10f4e08578f</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Business strategy</category><category>In-house issues</category><category>Team structure</category><category>Brand</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Preparing for change – establishing a domain name strategy for the gTLD regime</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Preparing for change – establishing a domain name strategy for the gTLD regime]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=7C1FF5FA-4662-4897-9273-35E111AADC69</link>
      <guid>7c1ff5fa-4662-4897-9273-35e111aadc69</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Internet issues</category><category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Talking trademarks at the USPTO </title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Talking trademarks at the USPTO ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=68F8C7A6-1EF0-4528-AE8C-E6FE9666DB08</link>
      <guid>68f8c7a6-1ef0-4528-ae8c-e6fe9666db08</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>IP offices</category><category>National</category><category>Policy</category><category>Government/policy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: A plaintiff’s guide to China: surveying the litigation landscape</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: A plaintiff’s guide to China: surveying the litigation landscape]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=BD2BC2DA-55A2-4698-BABD-2FA97D8F0A7B</link>
      <guid>bd2bc2da-55a2-4698-babd-2fa97d8f0a7b</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Other issues</category><category>Court system</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: ACTA – a missed opportunity</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: ACTA – a missed opportunity]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=13F49A1A-9619-454C-B04F-3764CCB59DD0</link>
      <guid>13f49a1a-9619-454c-b04f-3764ccb59dd0</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category><category>Domain names</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>Government/policy</category><category>International</category><category>Internet issues</category><category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Design and trade dress]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=45DF55B8-74C7-4C18-85C6-DFB4D42B82F2</link>
      <guid>45df55b8-74c7-4c18-85c6-dfb4d42b82f2</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trade dress</category><category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: From the gridiron to gold medals: enforcing sports trademarks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: From the gridiron to gold medals: enforcing sports trademarks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=A1D51FDE-2462-4BCE-BAE0-A65B501B9301</link>
      <guid>a1d51fde-2462-4bce-bae0-a65b501b9301</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Brand strategy</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>Infringement</category><category>Brand</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Full review of IP laws mooted in US</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 26: Full review of IP laws mooted in US]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=B5CFB919-31E7-4C4D-866A-2744FD750A22</link>
      <guid>b5cfb919-31e7-4c4d-866a-2744fd750a22</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Government/policy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Colour mark for cat food accepted for registration</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Mars Australia Pty Ltd (formerly Effem Foods Pty Ltd) v Soci&#233;t&#233; des Produits Nestl&#233; SA, the Federal Court has set aside a decision of the delegate of the registrar of trademarks and allowed Mars Australia Pty Ltd's trademark application for a particular shade of purple to proceed to registration in respect of cat food.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=AF8F6C73-392E-4AA9-9E9C-7631690A427B</link>
      <guid>af8f6c73-392e-4aa9-9e9c-7631690a427b</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Importance of actual confusion among relevant customers highlighted</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Caliber Automotive Liquidators Inc v Premier Chrysler Jeep Dodge LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has remanded for trial a finding of summary judgment that infomercials called 'Slasher Shows' were not confusingly similar to the marks SLASH-IT! SALES EVENT or SLASHER SALE. Among other things, the district court should not have overvalued the lack of confusion by the general public.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=6E8FAB5D-6C65-4530-A4EC-3EAC68AC0FCD</link>
      <guid>6e8fab5d-6c65-4530-a4ec-3eac68ac0fcd</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Pioneering IP court is created</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The creation of a new Intellectual Property Court, located near Lisbon, has recently been announced. Although very little is known about this initiative, it is thought that the court will have jurisdiction over all matters involving trademarks, patents and other industrial property rights, as well as copyright and neighbouring rights. The creation of this specialized court has, however, raised several concerns.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=9CF4356A-445E-4286-92EB-B94CC651B87F</link>
      <guid>9cf4356a-445e-4286-92eb-b94cc651b87f</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Court system</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Trademark owners given 12-month deadline under new trademark law</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Montenegrin parliament is expected to adopt a new trademark law in early July. Under Article 65 of the new law, trademark owners must request that their rights be entered into the Montenegrin Trademarks Register within 12 months of the law coming into force.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=B7C74F6B-12DA-4734-AB2F-7397C9A8548C</link>
      <guid>b7c74f6b-12da-4734-ab2f-7397c9a8548c</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Acceptable variants of acronym mark considered</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The hearing officer has dismissed Transport for London's opposition to the registration of the letters 'tfl' in relation to &quot;operating search engines&quot; and &quot;domain name management services&quot;. In doing so, the hearing officer held that use of 'tfl' in the domain name form and as a web address were not acceptable variants of the TFL mark. However, use of 'TfL' was an acceptable variant of the mark as registered.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=4AB62074-2283-4134-A516-9EB6657E7BD7</link>
      <guid>4ab62074-2283-4134-a516-9eb6657e7bd7</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Appeal dismissed in dispute over right to use family name</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Miranda Aluminum Inc v Miranda Windows &amp; Doors Inc, a dispute over the use of the surname Miranda, the Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal brought by Miranda Aluminum Inc. Among other things, the court held that a living individual challenging the validity of a mark on the basis that the public would falsely associate the mark with him had to establish the existence of a “significant public reputation”.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=B47BFE49-0D7B-4598-9719-F18DB7C0E1D7</link>
      <guid>b47bfe49-0d7b-4598-9719-f18db7c0e1d7</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Post-purchase confusion trumps 'first sale' doctrine</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Au-Tomotive Gold Inc v Volkswagen of America Inc, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has found against a company that created new products incorporating another company's genuine and lawfully purchased trademarked products, holding that the 'first sale' doctrine is not a defence if such new products create a likelihood of confusion among persons observing the products after purchase.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=004496C3-6760-4D10-AB2D-92CF5A799AEB</link>
      <guid>004496c3-6760-4d10-ab2d-92cf5a799aeb</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Rospatent guidelines on letters of consent issued</title>
      <description><![CDATA[To ensure the uniform application of Part IV of the Civil Code, Rospatent has issued guidelines on the application of the provisions of the code relating to letters of consent. According to the guidelines, Rospatent has discretion to allow or refuse the registration of a trademark based on the existence of a letter of consent. However, the guidelines contradict case law of the arbitration courts and do not comply with the provisions of the code.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=799BAD9E-E098-470F-8B89-049C497BD62A</link>
      <guid>799bad9e-e098-470f-8b89-049c497bd62a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>'Positional' colour mark refused registration</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In X Technology Swiss GmbH v OHIM, the General Court has held that an orange colouring of the toe of a sock could not be registered as a trademark because it lacked distinctiveness. Among other things, the court held that the fact that a mark is a 'positional mark' is irrelevant for the purpose of assessing its distinctive character.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=AFA031CF-7F46-4B73-A8C5-6CF4FB602FA4</link>
      <guid>afa031cf-7f46-4b73-a8c5-6cf4fb602fa4</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>New Trademark Law to bring significant changes</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The new Law on Trademarks is due to enter into force on July 1 2010. It is a completely new piece of legislation, which abolishes the Law on Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin. One of the most important developments is the introduction of an opposition procedure, under which all trademark applications must be published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark Office.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=0C54E8B5-6A42-4729-9ECF-27339735CF42</link>
      <guid>0c54e8b5-6a42-4729-9ecf-27339735cf42</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Concern over new Trademark Office requirements for application forms</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The China Trademark Office has published new requirements regarding the completion of application forms, which are due to take effect on July 1 2010. One of the new requirements is that application forms for trademark registration and opposition proceedings must be signed by the applicant, even if the latter has engaged an agent to handle the application on its behalf.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=420D3906-EF90-434F-8584-DAA72F22EA72</link>
      <guid>420d3906-ef90-434f-8584-daa72f22ea72</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Principle of exhaustion of rights clarified</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v Simex Trading AG, the ECJ has clarified the interpretation of Article 13(1) of the Community Trademark Regulation and Article 7(1) of the First Trademarks Directive. The issue was whether testers containing Davidoff perfume had been put on the market in the EEA by the trademark owner itself, or by a third party with the trademark owner's consent.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=15B739F1-FEFB-48C6-8F57-674BF5712129</link>
      <guid>15b739f1-fefb-48c6-8f57-674bf5712129</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Selective distribution networks</category><category>Parallel imports</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Protection of Euro 2012 intellectual property stepped up</title>
      <description><![CDATA[As another significant football event - Euro 2012, which will be held in Ukraine and Poland - approaches, the protection of intellectual property relating to the championship is at the foreground in Ukraine. Several trademarks relating to the Euro 2012 have recently been registered, including the slogan “Creating history together”.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=234CE8E2-32CD-4A60-822D-A1632DB88CA5</link>
      <guid>234ce8e2-32cd-4a60-822d-a1632db88ca5</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>'Origin neutral' mark rejected in borderline case</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In LG Electronics Inc's application, the appointed person has dismissed LG Electronics Inc's appeal against the UK Intellectual Property Office's refusal to allow the registration of the word mark INTELLIGENT SENSOR for goods in Class 9 on the basis that it was descriptive.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=27FBCE75-9DDA-42DB-9F43-7E81BD8DF32F</link>
      <guid>27fbce75-9dda-42db-9f43-7e81bd8df32f</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    
</channel>
</rss>
