<?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 - 2012</copyright>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <managingEditor>tlittle@worldtrademarkreview.com  (Trevor Little)</managingEditor>
    <lastBuildDate>16/05/2012 00:00:00</lastBuildDate>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
    

    
    <item>
      <title>Misleading UDRP exhibits could create liability under ACPA</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In ISystems v Spark Networks Ltd, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that a company that allegedly redacted portions of an exhibit submitted in connection with a complaint under the UDRP may be liable for misrepresentation under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=9349C3FE-F19A-40F6-A414-D09D89C07A1E</link>
      <guid>9349c3fe-f19a-40f6-a414-d09d89c07a1e</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category></category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>'.no' registry launches major data cleansing operation</title>
      <description><![CDATA[NORID, the registry responsible for ‘.no’ domain names, has launched a data cleansing operation to update the ownership details for registered domain names in line with the registration requirements for ‘.no’ domain names. NORID’s tightening-up actions seem to go against the general trend of liberalisation for ccTLDs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=C2C64AB0-FE6B-4929-85FF-8481CD6EC18A</link>
      <guid>c2c64ab0-fe6b-4929-85ff-8481cd6ec18a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Spain removed from Special 301 Report's Watch List</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Office of the US Trade Representative published its latest Special 301 Report on April 30 2012. There was good news for Spain, which was removed from the Watch List. The report applauds the swift measures taken by the country, but warns that, in practice, the police and the judges themselves have become somewhat relaxed in combatting IP offences over the internet.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=B98273EE-CBEB-46D8-845A-83D47FAFD1A0</link>
      <guid>b98273ee-cbeb-46d8-845a-83d47fafd1a0</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category><category>Government/policy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Government gives advice on misleading business names</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Office of Fair Trading has issued a document entitled &quot;Misleading or Otherwise Undesirable Names&quot;, which deals with all forms of unsuitability of business names. Although the OFT makes it clear that “[t]he protection of its trademarks or goodwill is of itself a matter for individual businesses to address”, it recognises that there are times when the choice of a business name can have substantial repercussions for IP owners and consumers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=A4C1CCDA-87EC-4055-8D83-9848496BE4E4</link>
      <guid>a4c1ccda-87ec-4055-8d83-9848496be4e4</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Unfair use</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Let's talk about '.sx' (and others)</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The registry for ‘.sx’, the ccTLD for Sint Maarten, has announced the launch of the ‘.sx’ extension. The sunrise period will run from May 3 to July 4 2012 - during this period, holders of any registered national trademarks will be able to apply for the corresponding ‘.sx’ domain name, provided that the mark was registered on or before March 1 2011. Meanwhile, domain name registrations under ‘.cw’, the ccTLD for Cura&#231;ao, have been open since February 1 2012.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=624CB978-AAF5-4D26-988C-15DECF3D17CE</link>
      <guid>624cb978-aaf5-4d26-988c-15decf3d17ce</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category></category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>No evidence that words contained in earlier marks had ceased to be descriptive</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Mars New Zealand Limited v Heinz Wattie's Limited, the High Court has overturned a decision of the assistant commissioner of trademarks refusing to register the mark ADVANCE ADVANCED PET NUTRITION based on the earlier marks CHAMP ADVANCED DOG NUTRITION and ADVANCED DOG NUTRITION. Among other things, the court was not convinced that the words ‘advanced dog nutrition’ had ceased to be descriptive.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=A2DC4D96-5E9D-44F4-936A-C9C0A3E61F33</link>
      <guid>a2dc4d96-5e9d-44f4-936a-c9c0a3e61f33</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Plaintiffs may recover attorneys' fees in addition to statutory damages</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v LY USA Inc, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has considered for the first time whether a trademark owner who elects to recover statutory damages for a defendant’s counterfeiting rather than actual damages and defendant’s profits is precluded from also recovering attorneys’ fees.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=F8F5C1C8-66CB-46BB-98B1-7E04A8A82000</link>
      <guid>f8f5c1c8-66cb-46bb-98b1-7e04a8a82000</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Court system</category><category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>ICANN orders Chinese registrar to stand and deliver</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ICANN has issued Chinese registrar eName Technology with a notice of breach of the registrar accreditation agreement after the domain name ‘1111.com’ was allegedly hijacked earlier this year and the registrar failed to respond to ICANN's request for information. In the wake of the launch of the new gTLDs, this case highlights the enormous responsibility entailed in acting as a domain name registrar.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=3BFD8238-1704-406B-8A3E-87B5C70B992D</link>
      <guid>3bfd8238-1704-406b-8a3e-87b5c70b992d</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court confirms domain name infringement, but reduces fine</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Supreme Administrative Court has upheld a decision of the Commission for the Protection of Competition in which the latter had fined a Sofia-based company for using a domain name that was confusingly similar to that of a competitor. The commission had imposed a fine amounting to 2% of the company’s 2008 turnover, but the court ruled that this amount was unjustified.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=B680DC30-7096-499E-BF02-725DAB09335C</link>
      <guid>b680dc30-7096-499e-bf02-725dab09335c</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Use of mark in connection with resale of old stock is not genuine use</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Cycleeurope AB v Dansk Supermarked A/S, the Maritime and Commercial Court has cancelled the trademark PUCH on the grounds of non-use. Among other things, the court held that use of the mark in connection with resale from old stock could not be regarded as normal marketing activity by the trademark owner.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=27867829-1E01-40C2-BF32-DFB2D3919D97</link>
      <guid>27867829-1e01-40c2-bf32-dfb2d3919d97</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Laches period begins from knowledge of confusing use, not mere knowledge of use</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Ray Communications Inc v Clear Channel Communications Inc, reviewing a laches defence to a trademark infringement claim, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that a district court had applied the wrong legal standard in determining when the defence was triggered, incorrectly measuring the laches period from the date the plaintiff first knew of the defendants’ use of a similar mark.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=AB2A7863-2A76-4C4F-912D-71E0DABC8E62</link>
      <guid>ab2a7863-2a76-4c4f-912d-71e0dabc8e62</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Case involving liability of online trading platform selected as Top IP Case for 2011</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court has released its Top IP Cases for 2011. One case that stands out is a dispute between Taobao.com, China's largest online trading platform, and a local brand owner, in which Taobao was found to have failed to take effective and necessary measures to stop infringing activities. The fact that it is listed in the Top IP Cases reveals the Supreme Court's inclination with regard to the liability of online trading platforms.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=C6B3D2AD-0753-4E38-87DB-12E339F3F9F6</link>
      <guid>c6b3d2ad-0753-4e38-87db-12e339f3f9f6</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Internet issues</category><category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Practice regarding registration of trademarks containing INNs is clarified</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Ukrainian Institute of Industrial Property has upheld a decision of the Appellate Board in which the latter had held that Celgene Corporation’s trademark THALIDOMIDE CELGENE should be registered for a limited list of goods, with a disclaimer for 'thalidomide'. The decision is significant in that it clarifies the institute’s practice with regard to the registration of trademarks containing INNs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=7A78FC85-DDB9-4C8E-9521-88232EC8F952</link>
      <guid>7a78fc85-ddb9-4c8e-9521-88232ec8f952</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Board of Appeal rebuked for failing to take into account error made by OHIM</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Brainlab AG v OHIM, the General Court has annulled a decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had rejected an application for restitutio in integrum and ruled that the applicant’s CTM had expired. OHIM had removed, by error, the reference to the applicant’s appointed representatives from its database and, for that reason, had not sent a notification to them.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=9FB12DCE-7291-4557-9BB5-EE0226944069</link>
      <guid>9fb12dce-7291-4557-9bb5-ee0226944069</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>German pet food manufacturer wins bad-faith case against Serbian company</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Commercial Appellate Court of Belgrade has upheld a decision of the Commercial Court of Belgrade in which the latter had found that the defendant, a Serbian importer and producer of pet food, had registered the marks GIMPET and GIMBORN in bad faith. The marks belonged to the defendant’s business partner, German pet food manufacturer Gimborn.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=FE96B2AD-1E46-4C1A-B091-319DCB944AC3</link>
      <guid>fe96b2ad-1e46-4c1a-b091-319dcb944ac3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Infringement</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Official mark declared void as holder is not 'public authority'</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Maple Leaf Foods Inc v Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma, the Federal Court has held the Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma’s official mark PARMA to be ineffective to give rise to any rights or prohibitions under the Trademarks Act, invalid and void ab initio. Among other things, the court found that the Consorzio was not a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Section 9 of the act.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=13305913-5AA7-4017-8A13-840F390F00B1</link>
      <guid>13305913-5aa7-4017-8a13-840f390f00b1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Certification/collective marks</category><category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Owner of Popeye and Wimpy figurative marks prevents registration of combined mark</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Tthe State Office for Inventions and Trademarks has rejected an application to register the combined trademark POLDO, which contained a representation of the cartoon characters Popeye the Sailor and Wimpy, based on an opposition filed by Hearst Holdings Inc, the owner of figurative trademarks representing these cartoon characters.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=6FF7268A-B69D-4B0C-AF4B-A2053110986B</link>
      <guid>6ff7268a-b69d-4b0c-af4b-a2053110986b</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Failure to actively use domain name not in itself evidence of bad faith</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Spain-based company Vacaciones eDreams SL has failed to obtain the transfer of the domain name ‘edreams.com.au’ under the auDRP, the dispute resolution policy for ‘.au’ domain names. Among other things, the panel believed that the respondent's stated planned use was not intended to give rise to confusion with the complainant, especially given the evidence of substantial third-party use of the term ‘eDreams’ in a variety of fields.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=0CC962E8-EC5D-4E3E-9615-7E93102245D1</link>
      <guid>0cc962e8-ec5d-4e3e-9615-7e93102245d1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Federal Supreme Court: defendant has burden of proving that goods are genuine</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The German Federal Supreme Court has issued two important decisions concerning the burden of proving that products are genuine and the doctrine of exhaustion of trademark rights. These decisions could represent a major boost for trademark owners in their fight against counterfeiting and parallel imports.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=C0313B62-4214-4804-9396-A580F8DB8B3B</link>
      <guid>c0313b62-4214-4804-9396-a580f8db8b3b</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Parallel imports</category><category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Growth in '.eu' domain names as extension celebrates sixth anniversary</title>
      <description><![CDATA[According to the latest quarterly progress report from EURid, the ‘.eu’ registry, at the end of 2011 there were a total of 3.5 million ‘.eu’ registered domain names, representing growth of 5.5% when compared with the fourth quarter of 2010. Even though ‘.eu’ was launched six years ago, not all issues relating to the registration rules have been resolved, and one case in particular, known as Pie Optiek, is still pending before the ECJ.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=74A79A5C-851E-4E16-9894-3028F1250A81</link>
      <guid>74a79a5c-851e-4e16-9894-3028f1250a81</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court clarifies when mark is suggestive, rather than descriptive</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Liebherr-International AG v Department of Intellectual Property, the Supreme Court has held that the Board of Trademarks had erred in finding that the mark BIOFRESH for “apparatus for refrigerating and freezing” was not registrable because it lacked distinctiveness. The Supreme Court found that BIOFRESH was suggestive, rather than descriptive.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=32C63C4B-89B9-431C-A1D2-4D870249C76A</link>
      <guid>32c63c4b-89b9-431c-a1d2-4d870249c76a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court sets the tone for IP cases</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court’s IP Tribunal has issued its 2011 Case Report, which contains 34 guiding precedents covering almost all fields of IP litigation. Importantly, the Supreme Court used the precedents to establish rules for 44 key legal issues that have often caused disputes in IP cases.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=74E4540F-8106-4254-9109-E04C445D28B7</link>
      <guid>74e4540f-8106-4254-9109-e04c445d28b7</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category></category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>One-second-long image of 'luxury' basketball in TV ad dilutes Louis Vuitton's marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v Hyundai Motor America, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York has awarded summary judgment to Louis Vuitton on its federal and state dilution claims based on Hyundai’s use of a basketball featuring images that called to mind those associated with Louis Vuitton and its trademarks. The case is also notable for its discussion of the differences between dilution and infringement surveys.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=CFB7C470-2CE3-4DC4-BB81-842214E69152</link>
      <guid>cfb7c470-2ce3-4dc4-bb81-842214e69152</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Dilution</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Heineken victorious in parallel imports case</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Moscow District Federal Commercial Court has upheld a decision of the Ninth Commercial Appeals Court in which the latter had imposed a fine on Russian company Elitvoda Ru for importing Heineken Česk&#225; republika beer without the trademark owner’s authorisation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=3A75CC53-5A29-41A7-8B48-0501BFB83799</link>
      <guid>3a75cc53-5a29-41a7-8b48-0501bfb83799</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Parallel imports</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Right to information injunction at pre-trial stage: Supreme Court gives the green light</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court has put an end to the controversy surrounding the interpretation of Article L716-7-1 of the IP Code, which implemented Articles 6 and 8 of the IP Rights Enforcement Directive into French law. Article L716-7-1 introduced a right to information, thereby allowing trademark owners to request an injunction against an infringer to communicate key information to the court.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=4F911B48-91D0-410A-8226-F525FD926C08</link>
      <guid>4f911b48-91d0-410a-8226-f525fd926c08</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Court system</category><category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Goods manufactured contrary to licence agreement are not &quot;genuine goods&quot;</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Paul’s Retail Pty Ltd v Sporte Leisure Pty Ltd, the Full Court of the Federal Court has confirmed that the exclusive rights of a trademark owner will be infringed by the importation into Australia of goods bearing the registered mark in circumstances where the terms of the relevant manufacturing licence restricted the supply of the goods and the use of the mark to India.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=E2096DF1-F00C-492A-8A0C-17E68A0747B8</link>
      <guid>e2096df1-f00c-492a-8a0c-17e68a0747b8</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Parallel imports</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>OXY not descriptive of skincare products</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Board of Appeal has annulled a decision of the Estonian Patent Office in which the latter had refused to register the trademark OXY for skincare products in Classes 3 and 5. Among other things, the applicant had argued that the Patent Office had not filed any evidence that could prove that the word 'oxy' was used in the Estonian language and in the course of trade.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=AEC6DB2E-C9CA-40EC-A1A9-8D1FA11CDEE3</link>
      <guid>aec6db2e-c9ca-40ec-a1a9-8d1fa11cdee3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Companies should ensure that domain names are registered using company's name</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Cool-View LLC has lost a case filed under the UDRP in relation to the domain name ‘cool-view.com’. The domain name had been registered by the respondent, Dave Medinis, inventor and founder of Cool-View. A single-member panel ruled that the respondent was allowed to retain ownership of the domain name on the basis that there had been no bad-faith registration and use, as required for a transfer under the UDRP.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=F9802AA6-84A2-4048-B00A-89D8DDF934D3</link>
      <guid>f9802aa6-84a2-4048-b00a-89d8ddf934d3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Defendant cannot rely on 'cover registration' to justify infringement</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Section 8 of the Barcelona Court of Appeal has upheld a decision of the Trial Court Number 23 of Barcelona in a case involving the importation of thousands of garments bearing imitations of the GIORGIO ARMANI SPA marks. This case is of interest in that the importer provided a ‘cover registration’ in an attempt to justify the legality of its actions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=7131045E-390B-469B-8EEA-A8FFAFC045E1</link>
      <guid>7131045e-390b-469b-8eea-a8ffafc045e1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Inactive website insufficient to prove bad-faith use</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Mediaset SpA, the biggest Italian and Spanish private TV group, has lost a case filed under the UDRP in relation to the domain name ‘mediaset.com’. Among other things, the panel found that the fact that the domain name was inactive was, by itself, insufficient to prove bad-faith use. The case also shows that inadvertently allowing a domain name to lapse can be a very expensive error.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=37B6F237-C900-4E68-94D2-4349D699F233</link>
      <guid>37b6f237-c900-4e68-94d2-4349d699f233</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Rosetta Stone v Google: AdWords still not out of the woods</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Rosetta Stone Ltd v Google Inc, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has reversed a Virginia district court’s summary judgment ruling that Google’s use of trademarks in its AdWords program was not likely to cause confusion as a matter of law. The appellate court acknowledged the possibility that Google intended to cause confusion and gave new life to Rosetta Stone’s claims of trademark infringement and dilution.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=0B0B4A70-9048-479E-BCDD-71EBA702CCA3</link>
      <guid>0b0b4a70-9048-479e-bcdd-71eba702cca3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Dilution</category><category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>IP infringement treated as criminal offence under amended Criminal Code</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The amendments to the Albanian Criminal Code have entered into force. Before the amendments, the Criminal Code did not contain any provisions concerning the protection of intellectual property. However, new provisions dealing with fines and penalties applicable in case of infringement of IP rights have now been added.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=5A601861-092D-4980-B185-FD43C1A9C354</link>
      <guid>5a601861-092d-4980-b185-fd43c1a9c354</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Government/policy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Application for THRILLER LIVE held to be in bad faith</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In The Flying Music Company Ltd (THRILLER LIVE), a UK trademark application for THRILLER LIVE by the company behind the unauthorised musical of Michael Jackson’s life was found to have been made in bad faith. This was despite the hearing officer finding that the use of THRILLER by Michael Jackson and his successors was purely descriptive of his record-selling album.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=34B3010A-658B-4805-B43B-4103745CC091</link>
      <guid>34b3010a-658b-4805-b43b-4103745cc091</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Passing off</category><category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Persistence pays off: TONI&amp;GUY is finally registered</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Despite facing hurdles at the TRAB and the Beijing Intermediate Court, the Chinese mark TONI&amp;GUY has finally been registered following a decision of the Beijing High Court. The case shows that persistence is key in China, and that cancellation actions on the grounds of non-use remain a potentially powerful tool in uplifting a conflicting prior registered mark.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=E7045262-AD93-4C51-A2A2-B71E4F1857B3</link>
      <guid>e7045262-ad93-4c51-a2a2-b71e4f1857b3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category><category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Federal Circuit decision illustrates when a design is functional</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In In re Becton, Dickinson and Company, a divided panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision of the TTAB upholding the examining attorney’s refusal to register a closure cap for blood collection tubes as a trademark on the ground that it was functional.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=04838132-CFE3-4117-AA97-ED9AEAE3CB9B</link>
      <guid>04838132-cfe3-4117-aa97-ed9aeae3cb9b</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category><category>National procedures</category><category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>ECJ rules on appropriate jurisdiction in keywords cases</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH, the ECJ has held that an action for infringement of a trademark registered in one member state against an advertiser using a keyword identical to that mark on a search engine operating under the ccTLD of another member state may be brought in either the courts in the jurisdiction where the mark is registered, or the courts in the jurisdiction where the advertiser is established.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=6C2A4C5D-E65A-4356-BA08-10D8042B0AAD</link>
      <guid>6c2a4c5d-e65a-4356-ba08-10d8042b0aad</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Keywords</category><category>Jurisdiction</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>CTM Court relies on ECJ's design decision in Celaya</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Alicante Court of Appeal, acting as a Community Trademark Court, has held that the defendant's DUNFLEX marks were null and void on the grounds that they had been applied for in bad faith. Interestingly, the court relied on the judgment of the ECJ in Celaya Emparanza y Galdos Internacional SA v Proyectos Integrales de Balizamientos SL, issued the day before, which concerned registered Community designs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=F066D927-A066-4356-B083-1E0BEDDD5E8F</link>
      <guid>f066d927-a066-4356-b083-1e0beddd5e8f</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Crackdown on unjustified procedural delays in trademark infringement actions</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The decision of the Court of Appeal in Fred Perry (Holdings) Ltd v Brands Plaza Trading Ltd provides guidance on appellate court powers to interfere with decisions under the Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 3.9 and seems to indicate a change in judicial tolerance towards uncooperative litigants.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=97A049B1-27E6-4D7E-AA0F-10AFE03CAD7F</link>
      <guid>97a049b1-27e6-4d7e-aa0f-10afe03cad7f</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Infringement</category><category>Court system</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Conflicting views on parallel imports lead to confusion for brand owners and importers</title>
      <description><![CDATA[A month after the Delhi High Court’s landmark decision in Samsung, the customs commissioner in Mumbai has released a parallel-imported consignment of DELL-branded laptops. Contrary to the court, the customs commissioner stated that the Trademarks Act recognises the principle of international exhaustion of rights and, therefore, the importation of genuine goods procured by lawful means does not amount to infringement.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=A1D0E17D-C7A2-419E-8E11-388D664EA91D</link>
      <guid>a1d0e17d-c7a2-419e-8e11-388d664ea91d</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Parallel imports</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Decision clarifies registrability criteria for marks that are borderline descriptive</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Supreme Administrative Court has dismissed a cassation appeal in a case involving an application for the registration of the device mark HIGROSTEROWANIE ('higrocontrol'). The decision shows that a trademark which consists of a combination of words, but does not appear in any dictionary, will not always be considered to be fanciful and, therefore, may not obtain trademark protection.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=F4FD21AC-ACB1-4584-A616-59D715939C3A</link>
      <guid>f4fd21ac-acb1-4584-a616-59d715939c3a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Mark owners should use their marks as registered, or face losing them</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Court’s decision in Tricarico v Dunn Bay Holdings Pty Ltd demonstrates the importance of using a trademark in the manner in which it is registered. The court set aside a decision of the delegate to register the trademark MALTMARKET BAR &amp; KITCHEN on the basis that the proprietor did not use the mark as it was represented on the register, and accordingly, had not used it within the meaning of Section 7(1) of the Trademarks Act.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=7CDD7B3B-8574-4A45-B776-559B68181E98</link>
      <guid>7cdd7b3b-8574-4a45-b776-559b68181e98</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Controversial Council of State decision might affect foreign mark owners</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Colombian Council of State has issued a controversial decision within the context of nullity proceedings. According to the decision, if a party wishes to file a nullity action under Andean Community Decision 486, it must have filed an opposition against the trademark at issue in the first place. If confirmed, the decision will have dramatic consequences for foreign mark owners who are interested in protecting and enforcing their rights in Colombia.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=2AB6A19D-E1B4-4885-A3E4-0B728A73BC9E</link>
      <guid>2ab6a19d-e1b4-4885-a3e4-0b728a73bc9e</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Federal Administrative Court develops jurisprudence on opinion polls</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Swiss Federal Administrative Court has held that the trademark AUS DER REGION. F&#220;R DIE REGION. ('From the region. For the region.') belonged to the public domain and had not acquired distinctiveness through use pursuant to Article 2(a) of the Trademark Act. The court confirmed and further developed the jurisprudence established in its recent OKTOBERFEST-BIER decision with regard to opinion polls.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=3C7EF657-3004-4E31-BC0F-C0603AD7367A</link>
      <guid>3c7ef657-3004-4e31-bc0f-c0603ad7367a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>'Beb' element not weakly distinctive for baby food</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Hipp &amp; Co KG v OHIM, the General Court has upheld a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trademarks BEBA and BEBIO, which both covered baby food. Rather surprisingly, instead of accepting that 'beb' was a reference to 'baby' or 'b&#233;b&#233;', the court stated that Spanish consumers would associate 'beb' with the Spanish verb 'beber' (‘to drink’).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=080099A5-ABFD-4FA6-A9EE-032E1A2D7881</link>
      <guid>080099a5-abfd-4fa6-a9ee-032e1a2d7881</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>TTAB decision shows that it pays to have prior US federal registration</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In In re Strategic Partners Inc, in a precedential opinion, the TTAB has confirmed the benefit of owning a prior US registration for a substantially identical mark. Strategic Partners Inc was granted registration of its ANYWEAR mark, even though it was very similar to the cited mark ANYWEAR BY JOSIE NATORI, because it already had a previous registration for the highly similar ANYWEARS mark.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=88A390B5-8E01-4661-9B5D-D33166B2C60D</link>
      <guid>88a390b5-8e01-4661-9b5d-d33166b2c60d</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Industrial Property Law amended to implement TLT</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Law 20569, which amends the Chilean Industrial Property Law, has come into force. The aim of the amendments was to allow the implementation of the Trademark Law Treaty in the country. Among other things, under the new law, powers of attorneys for the administrative prosecution of industrial property matters no longer need to be notarised and legalised, unless the interested party requests it.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=6D0A4C04-FD74-4DD7-92D8-8501134991EA</link>
      <guid>6d0a4c04-fd74-4dd7-92d8-8501134991ea</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>‘Swiss Emmentaler’ protected as denomination of origin, despite lack of EU protection</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Specialised IP Division of the Court of Milan has issued a landmark decision concerning the protection in Italy of the Swiss PDO ‘Emmentaler’/’Emmental Svizzero’ (‘Swiss Emmentaler’). The court found that the denomination should be protected in Italy - even though it is not protected at the EU level - on the basis of the 1951 Stresa Convention.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=CA4A58C7-3DD9-49EA-8115-D4CFEF85715D</link>
      <guid>ca4a58c7-3dd9-49ea-8115-d4cfef85715d</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Geographical indications/appellations of origin</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Russian word for ‘Baltic’ refused registration based on earlier BALTIKA mark</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Baltika Breweries v S&amp;G Intertrade Ltd, the Israeli Trademark Office has upheld an opposition by the owner of the registered mark BALTIKA for beer against an application by a former distributor to register a device mark including the Russian word transcribed as 'Baltiyskoe' (meaning 'Baltic') for beer and soft drinks.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=74587A01-A9DF-4864-B599-B7D7381019D6</link>
      <guid>74587a01-a9df-4864-b599-b7d7381019d6</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Global reputation of TIVO mark leads to cancellation of VIVO</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Tivo Inc v Vivo International Corporation Pty Ltd, the Federal Court has ordered that the registration of the VIVO mark be cancelled and that the mark be removed from the register. Among other things, the court found that, as of the filing date of the application for VIVO, extensive references to the TiVo products in Australian media and entertainment sources were such that the TIVO mark had acquired a reputation in Australia.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=05E2871E-1D4A-47F5-A9DC-B05A63D9CCF2</link>
      <guid>05e2871e-1d4a-47f5-a9dc-b05a63d9ccf2</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court declines to weigh in on HALLOUMI</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Canadian cheese producers have prevailed in the long-running battle over HALLOUMI, defeating an application by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism of the Republic of Cyprus to register HALLOUMI as a certification mark. The Opposition Board’s refusal was upheld by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, and an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has now been turned down.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=9D540D02-1BC3-44C3-91F5-E55EC842B5F3</link>
      <guid>9d540d02-1bc3-44c3-91f5-e55ec842b5f3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category><category>National procedures</category><category>Certification/collective marks</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Well-timed letter to registrar may be first step in preventing another party's registration</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The decision of the Federal Court in 1-800-Flowers.com Inc v Registrar of Trademarks demonstrates that the registrar has a broad power, under Section 38 of the Trademarks Act, to revoke the acceptance of an application. It also suggests that writing to the registrar in support of revoking acceptance of an application may be an effective tool for prospective opponents.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=4587BBAC-A84B-48F7-BA94-9B536AD2AFBC</link>
      <guid>4587bbac-a84b-48f7-ba94-9b536ad2afbc</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Nominet celebrates 10 millionth domain name</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Nominet has announced that it has registered its 10 millionth domain name under ‘.uk’, enhancing the extension’s reputation and ensuring its position as the world’s second-largest ccTLD. The milestone was an ideal moment for Nominet to announce that it was planning a major investment in the ‘.uk’ brand and that a campaign, including a dedicated ‘.uk’ website, would begin in May.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=676FDE1A-7CBB-409D-8E25-F9652ECC7B51</link>
      <guid>676fde1a-7cbb-409d-8e25-f9652ecc7b51</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=92F5FCBA-1A73-4CEA-9A0F-6838A7E7D7B7</link>
      <guid>92f5fcba-1a73-4cea-9a0f-6838a7e7d7b7</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=9D3A3B58-FA9D-42DF-8AFB-768C4A424485</link>
      <guid>9d3a3b58-fa9d-42df-8afb-768c4a424485</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Gaining consensus on comparative advertising in Brazil</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Gaining consensus on comparative advertising in Brazil]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=9878388B-8F6D-4193-B14B-E0716AD34207</link>
      <guid>9878388b-8f6d-4193-b14b-e0716ad34207</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Other issues</category><category>National</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>BEATLE for wheelchairs would take unfair advantage of BEATLES</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In You-Q BV v OHIM, the General Court has upheld a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM finding that the mark BEATLE for goods in Class 12 would take unfair advantage of the repute and the consistent selling power of the earlier BEATLES mark. The General Court held that the image portrayed by the earlier mark was still synonymous with freedom, youth and mobility - an image which could benefit the goods covered by the mark applied for.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=2CE2247E-74C7-4DE5-9FF8-E9480EF8EAFA</link>
      <guid>2ce2247e-74c7-4de5-9ff8-e9480ef8eafa</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=311CB1C7-4292-4CD3-9CC5-0C9DAEEADAC1</link>
      <guid>311cb1c7-4292-4cd3-9cc5-0c9daeeadac1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Inside Track: Est&#233;e Lauder and INTA</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Inside Track: Est&#233;e Lauder and INTA]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=91E4727B-C7BC-4C83-8769-E132558B83B9</link>
      <guid>91e4727b-c7bc-4c83-8769-e132558b83b9</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>In-house issues</category><category>Brand strategy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Proliferation of trademarks – good, bad or just plain inevitable?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Proliferation of trademarks – good, bad or just plain inevitable?]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=DB8AC69F-2184-42F3-AE0E-500691F6A655</link>
      <guid>db8ac69f-2184-42f3-ae0e-500691f6a655</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Brand strategy</category><category>Brand management</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Recovery time – the impact of economic conditions on trademark practice</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Recovery time – the impact of economic conditions on trademark practice]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=23F3A5C5-3C07-48BE-8DFB-854379F64A7A</link>
      <guid>23f3a5c5-3c07-48be-8dfb-854379f64a7a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Brand management</category><category>In-house issues</category><category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Brand</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Trademark issues in product placement deals: your must-have clauses</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Trademark issues in product placement deals: your must-have clauses]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=BA958CA6-689A-4EFB-BA03-C7F854CFCEB0</link>
      <guid>ba958ca6-689a-4efb-ba03-c7f854cfceb0</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>In-house issues</category><category>Brand strategy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Weathering the storm – assessing the resilience of the franchise model</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Weathering the storm – assessing the resilience of the franchise model]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=0881F1FA-C5BF-4B4F-BCCA-A1F6D02BBB72</link>
      <guid>0881f1fa-c5bf-4b4f-bcca-a1f6d02bbb72</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category><category>In-house issues</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Pharmaceutical labels will soon have to include brand name in additional languages</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Amendments 17 and 20 to the Pharmacists Ordinance, which will come into effect on August 1 2012, will require that pharmaceutical labelling indicate the brand name of the product not only in Hebrew and English, but also in Arabic and Russian. In light of the new labelling requirements, it is advisable to apply for trademark registration for the product name in each of the four languages in order to ensure optimal protection for the brand.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=00E72589-B4A1-479B-AA5F-1C39A4CB66EA</link>
      <guid>00e72589-b4a1-479b-aa5f-1c39a4cb66ea</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Government/policy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: A question of character – best practice in managing mascots</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: A question of character – best practice in managing mascots]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=4179BCC4-5BCC-4186-AD13-CCFCE72AA0F3</link>
      <guid>4179bcc4-5bcc-4186-ad13-ccfce72aa0f3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Brand strategy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Acceptance of sound marks paves way for other non-traditional marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Acceptance of sound marks paves way for other non-traditional marks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=5B8E2396-5476-48D9-9B68-3B4C37FF0BB3</link>
      <guid>5b8e2396-5476-48d9-9b68-3b4c37ff0bb3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Non-traditional marks</category><category>IP offices</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Canadian Supreme Court clarifies factors for assessing likelihood of confusion</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Canadian Supreme Court clarifies factors for assessing likelihood of confusion]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=E13A5B41-2934-4B54-9F15-A6D0E0DD42A1</link>
      <guid>e13a5b41-2934-4b54-9f15-a6d0e0dd42a1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>IP offices</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=9D1C313A-4714-4E1E-824F-4198F0EC2335</link>
      <guid>9d1c313a-4714-4e1e-824f-4198f0ec2335</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: EU Parliament rejects ACTA referral; commission pushes on </title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: EU Parliament rejects ACTA referral; commission pushes on ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=46455510-374F-424F-834B-7E1B1F0099AB</link>
      <guid>46455510-374f-424f-834b-7e1b1f0099ab</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Government/policy</category><category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Getting yourself known in Singapore</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Getting yourself known in Singapore]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=1376274D-0EFB-4BC3-AD61-4A776BAA5171</link>
      <guid>1376274d-0efb-4bc3-ad61-4a776baa5171</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Related rights</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=F026E8EF-DA4E-49A1-8EAA-0EA959E42705</link>
      <guid>f026e8ef-da4e-49a1-8eaa-0ea959e42705</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Tune in for the iPad season</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Tune in for the iPad season]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=688141BB-21E6-46A8-9B0E-B3360D40D785</link>
      <guid>688141bb-21e6-46a8-9b0e-b3360d40d785</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Other issues</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Google held responsible for misleading and deceptive advertisements</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Google Inc, the Full Federal Court has unanimously upheld an appeal by the ACCC in relation to Google's AdWords service. The court found that Google was itself responsible for the content of certain misleading advertisements appearing on the results page of the 'google.com.au' website, and that, by publishing or causing the publication of those advertisements, it had directly engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=41B11036-CCF4-4AE6-840F-F0E64DF61B29</link>
      <guid>41b11036-ccf4-4ae6-840f-f0e64df61b29</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Keywords</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Defining the European trademark landscape</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Defining the European trademark landscape]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=B000F7DD-E2DE-4AF7-9BDF-F79227B42815</link>
      <guid>b000f7dd-e2de-4af7-9bdf-f79227b42815</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Internet issues</category><category>Keywords</category><category>International</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=CFCD3CA7-3F33-4108-A5CD-0D59AE54BC95</link>
      <guid>cfcd3ca7-3f33-4108-a5cd-0d59ae54bc95</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=8B5252E2-932E-4F5C-95ED-B8B83408B6BA</link>
      <guid>8b5252e2-932e-4f5c-95ed-b8b83408b6ba</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: ECJ clarifies relevance of ‘intention’ in designs decision</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: ECJ clarifies relevance of ‘intention’ in designs decision]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=C702FBE4-893A-4A6C-8293-25821EB733A9</link>
      <guid>c702fbe4-893a-4a6c-8293-25821eb733a9</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: How brands can leverage intangible asset value</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: How brands can leverage intangible asset value]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=33F2A2A2-5A7D-40D3-9873-8439DFD43B57</link>
      <guid>33f2a2a2-5a7d-40d3-9873-8439dfd43b57</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Brand strategy</category><category>Brand value</category><category>Brand management</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Industry Awards 2012</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Industry Awards 2012]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=4A9B7620-9974-410F-ACA0-1B5A8097C6B4</link>
      <guid>4a9b7620-9974-410f-aca0-1b5a8097c6b4</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Counterfeiting</category><category>In-house issues</category><category>Brand management</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: US study identifies economic importance of trademarks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: US study identifies economic importance of trademarks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=6F1DC81D-6031-458A-A9C8-E11A43026027</link>
      <guid>6f1dc81d-6031-458a-a9c8-e11a43026027</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Studies/research</category><category>Government/policy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: A matter of principles</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: A matter of principles]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=51219EFA-059A-4113-B2AC-9EA2FB44EB85</link>
      <guid>51219efa-059a-4113-b2ac-9ea2fb44eb85</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category><category>Infringement</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: A question of faith – the difficulties facing international brand owners in China</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: A question of faith – the difficulties facing international brand owners in China]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=936C7CA9-E5E5-496F-B43F-410BF4B3BF0D</link>
      <guid>936c7ca9-e5e5-496f-b43f-410bf4b3bf0d</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Infringement</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: A sound decision</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: A sound decision]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=2502E491-857D-4C30-8AEB-D7FD7030379B</link>
      <guid>2502e491-857d-4c30-8aeb-d7fd7030379b</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Non-traditional marks</category><category>National</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=7CD0BBB9-7B88-4F6F-8733-3A1220F654B5</link>
      <guid>7cd0bbb9-7b88-4f6f-8733-3a1220f654b5</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=A795FA19-FDA9-4214-A902-499A2BE4FA00</link>
      <guid>a795fa19-fda9-4214-a902-499a2be4fa00</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Domain name management]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=E5CD0528-A6AA-4FF6-BEE0-C554392FEF31</link>
      <guid>e5cd0528-a6aa-4ff6-bee0-c554392fef31</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Global view</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Global view]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=AB08FE42-4113-4934-A0AD-FEBC3DC46FD0</link>
      <guid>ab08fe42-4113-4934-a0ad-febc3dc46fd0</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>In-house issues</category><category>Private practice issues</category><category>Brand</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Keywords are always in fashion</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Keywords are always in fashion]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=D82A17B4-0F97-4913-82AB-641EC1FF3C90</link>
      <guid>d82a17b4-0f97-4913-82ab-641ec1ff3c90</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category><category>Keywords</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Looking at infringement with fresh eyes</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Looking at infringement with fresh eyes]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=B83CB261-00C4-4F90-8A97-CCA98C15A430</link>
      <guid>b83cb261-00c4-4f90-8a97-cca98c15a430</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>IP offices</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Market focus: United States</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Market focus: United States]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=A8851C21-C4C9-486F-877F-534A25A3DDA6</link>
      <guid>a8851c21-c4c9-486f-877f-534a25a3dda6</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Studies/research</category><category>National</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Near monopoly for BOTOX mark?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: Near monopoly for BOTOX mark?]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=B4219CFD-AF29-42FA-9D74-5A114968E8FA</link>
      <guid>b4219cfd-af29-42fa-9d74-5a114968e8fa</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 37: What do Columbus, the Americas and new gTLDs have in common?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 37: What do Columbus, the Americas and new gTLDs have in common?]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=F4DFDF84-EABF-43DE-8FA9-5CD9C1C309B8</link>
      <guid>f4dfdf84-eabf-43de-8fa9-5cd9c1c309b8</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Internet issues</category><category>gTLDs</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Cybersquatting cases up again in 2011</title>
      <description><![CDATA[WIPO’s Arbitration and Mediation Centre has issued its annual press release on cybersquatting, revealing that cybersquatting cases filed under the UDRP in 2011 increased by 2.5% and 9.4% over the previous levels in 2010 and 2009, respectively. In 2011 brand owners filed 2,764 complaints covering 4,781 domain names with WIPO under the UDRP.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=5AC9A0F9-7338-4B83-8C9A-58A08A6A9F5E</link>
      <guid>5ac9a0f9-7338-4b83-8c9a-58a08a6a9f5e</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court of Appeal hands down important judgment on pharma marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Adcock Ingram Intellectual Property (Pty) Ltd v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd, the Supreme Court of Appeal has reconsidered the notion that pharmaceuticals sold on prescription are less likely to be confused because they are dispensed by trained professionals in regulated circumstances. In doing so, the court questioned the relevance of findings in a 1983 leading case, also involving appellant Adcock, in contemporary society.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=BDAA2788-9F39-451B-A043-29746BC1D356</link>
      <guid>bdaa2788-9f39-451b-a043-29746bc1d356</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Computer programming relates to all areas of life and business activity</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Poslovni Sistem Mercator dd v OHIM, the General Court has upheld a decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM finding that one of the conditions for applying Article 8(1)(b) (identity or similarity of the services covered by the marks) had not been met. The court noted that, “since computer programming relates to all areas of life and business activity,… it is very common… for numerous services to involve the use of computers which must be programmed.”]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=FDA84032-D2C1-41E6-864D-100C05B56C1F</link>
      <guid>fda84032-d2c1-41e6-864d-100c05b56c1f</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Decision shows relevance of prior applications to demonstrate lack of bona fide intent</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In L’Or&#233;al SA v Marcon, in a precedential opinion, the TTAB has rejected on several, independent grounds the intent-to-use application for L’OREAL PARIS filed by an individual for “aloe vera beverages”. Among other things, the TTAB held that the applicant’s history of filing applications consisting of the well-known marks of others constituted objective evidence that supported a finding that he lacked a bona fide intent to use the mark.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=42A87E42-E573-47CD-9F6B-B1AEBC97A8E0</link>
      <guid>42a87e42-e573-47cd-9f6b-b1aebc97a8e0</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court clarifies trademark issues in new guidelines</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court has issued Judicial Opinion 2011/18, which seeks to provide guidance to the Chinese courts in IP cases. Articles 18 to 23 of the opinion deal with trademark issues. Although these provisions should have a positive impact on the judicial protection of trademarks, Article 19, which concerns the similarity of trademarks, may have negative side effects.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=BE985DC3-38EA-42C4-B145-2F85A46740F4</link>
      <guid>be985dc3-38ea-42c4-b145-2f85a46740f4</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category><category>Registration</category><category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>'Everything and the kitchen sink' approach to trademark filing may lead to invalidation</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has affirmed a decision of the Commercial Court of Zurich in which the latter had invalidated several YELLO marks on the grounds that the owner had essentially tried to &quot;block&quot; the use of the sign for all goods and services. As this is a common practice among trademark owners, the decision may have far-reaching consequences.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=F11A2D71-004F-4AEB-9043-8B7BB642BA7A</link>
      <guid>f11a2d71-004f-4aeb-9043-8b7bb642ba7a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Dentists will assign to the word 'exam' the meaning it has in a medical context</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Kaltenbach &amp; Voigt GmbH v OHIM, the General Court has upheld a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM finding that the mark 3D EXAM for &quot;X-ray apparatus for dental purposes&quot; lacked distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trademark Regulation. The court held that the relevant public would understand the expression ‘3d exam’ as referring to an X-ray examination in three dimensions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=08B6FEF5-2C3B-4684-A9C6-66C036811855</link>
      <guid>08b6fef5-2c3b-4684-a9c6-66c036811855</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Court clarifies differences in scope between Articles 7/1(b) and 8/1(b) of Decree Law</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In a landmark decision, the Court of Appeal has clarified the differences in scope and implementation between Article 7/1(b) and Article 8/1(b) of the Decree Law 556. Among other things, the court stated that if, during an ex officio examination, the Patent Institute must determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks, then the marks are not “indistinguishably similar” under Article 7/1(b).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=A93DABE8-4468-41B4-879B-4515DF9EB2D9</link>
      <guid>a93dabe8-4468-41b4-879b-4515df9eb2d9</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Court considers distinction between use of a sign &quot;as a trademark&quot; and descriptive use</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Edgetec International Pty Ltd v Zippykerb (NSW) Pty Ltd, the Federal Court has considered the distinction between the use of a sign “as a trademark” and the use of a sign merely as a description of some aspect of the relevant products or services. In this case, the court held that Zippykerb (NSW) Pty Ltd had used KWIK KERB “as a trademark”, and not merely to describe its quick kerbing services.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=FAA3F1EC-3A13-48B1-B548-2CA268965729</link>
      <guid>faa3f1ec-3a13-48b1-b548-2ca268965729</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    
</channel>
</rss>

