<?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>03/02/2012 00:00:00</lastBuildDate>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
    

    
    <item>
      <title>Correct test is goods covered by marks, rather than those sold under marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Kitzinger &amp; Co (GmbH &amp; Co KG) 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 KICO and KIKA, which both covered goods in Class 16. Among other things, the court agreed with the board that the goods were identical or similar, the correct test being the goods covered by the marks, rather than the goods sold under the marks.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=8C9AEB7E-CAB6-445C-BA6A-2D0F975192D6</link>
      <guid>8c9aeb7e-cab6-445c-ba6a-2d0f975192d6</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Court clarifies “other harmful influence” under Article 10 of Trademark Law</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In a case involving Lacoste's famous crocodile device, the Beijing Number 1 Intermediate People’s Court has clarified that the term “other harmful influence” in Article 10 of the Trademark Law refers only to public order, not to private interests. The court overturned a decision of the TRAB in which the latter had rejected Lacoste’s application to register the mirror image of its crocodile device.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=9E453DAE-A870-4C1C-8122-7E91C4414F06</link>
      <guid>9e453dae-a870-4c1c-8122-7e91c4414f06</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Luxury watchmaker wins parallel importation case</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Saint Petersburg and Leningrad Region Commercial Court has ruled in favour of luxury watchmaker Longines in a parallel importation case against Russian online shop Bestwatch.ru LLC and website administrator Adelia LLC. In recent years, the Federal Anti-monopoly Service of the Russian Federation has been pushing to legalise parallel importation by amending Article 1487 of the Civil Code.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=8094D5F0-0267-456F-A2D3-A3954E31F469</link>
      <guid>8094d5f0-0267-456f-a2d3-a3954e31f469</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Parallel imports</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>SC considers legal interest to bring non-use cancellation proceedings</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has considered the legal interest necessary to initiate proceedings to obtain an administrative declaration of invalidity of a registered trademark on the grounds of non-use before the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=87698489-F5AF-46CA-84C9-0F448203E132</link>
      <guid>87698489-f5af-46ca-84c9-0f448203e132</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>‘Red Label’ held to be common to the trade</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Hindustan Unilever Limited v Girnar Exports, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board has dismissed four appeals against orders of the deputy registrars of Kolkata and Chennai that had denied registration of RED LABEL marks for tea. Among other things, the board found that the words ‘Red Label’ are common to the trade.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=F88370D3-AF2E-4751-8FD2-6B673B29519A</link>
      <guid>f88370d3-af2e-4751-8fd2-6b673b29519a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Court recognises that slogans may be inherently distinctive</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Eveready Battery Company Inc v Registrar of Trademarks, the Tel Aviv District Court has affirmed the refusal to register the advertising slogan 'free your skin' on the grounds that it was descriptive of shaving products and razors. However, in doing so, it recognised that slogans may be inherently distinctive. Following the decision, the registrar of trademarks revoked a 2004 Circular Letter setting stricter standards for the examination of slogans.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=BA383E41-C4E7-4328-8339-2EE9A0B49DB0</link>
      <guid>ba383e41-c4e7-4328-8339-2ee9a0b49db0</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Decision highlights General Court’s tendency to consider purpose of goods</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Hamberger Industriewerke GmbH v OHIM, the General Court has upheld a decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had found that the mark ATRIUM was descriptive of construction and flooring goods. Among other things, the court held that, as the word ‘atrium’ indicated the purpose of the goods in the application, there was a sufficiently direct and concrete link between the mark and the goods.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=A39671B1-9D9D-49E7-855B-900495DC9477</link>
      <guid>a39671b1-9d9d-49e7-855b-900495dc9477</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Opponent’s marks held to have ‘deeper roots’</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Bell ExpressVu Limited v Mariner Partners Inc, the hearing officer has upheld Bell ExpressVu’s opposition to the registration of the marks XVU and XVU TV CARE by Mariner Partners Inc. Among other things, the hearing officer stated that some of Bell’s marks had “deeper roots” and, in particular, Bell’s EXPRESSVU mark had “become known significantly in Canada, if not well known”.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=D31D827A-4980-4052-A6EE-D9837C36259E</link>
      <guid>d31d827a-4980-4052-a6ee-d9837c36259e</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>‘Shanzhai’ Michelin guide held to be infringing</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In a case involving the MICHELIN mark, the Shanghai Number 2 Intermediate People’s Court has held that, even if the imitation of the mark was presented as a parody (or 'shanzhai'), it still constituted a violation of the trademark owner's rights. The defendant had published an article imitating the famous Michelin guide of restaurants, the only difference being that the name Michelin was spelt ‘Micheling’.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=F79311A9-6234-4ACE-9663-3A8A7957C4CE</link>
      <guid>f79311a9-6234-4ace-9663-3a8a7957c4ce</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Lufthansa successfully invalidates ‘star’ mark</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Appeal Division of the State Patent Bureau has held that there was a likelihood of confusion between STAR1 AIRLINES for services in Class 39 and STAR ALLIANCE for services in Classes 39 and 42. Among other things, the Appeal Division found that “travel arrangement” in Class 39 complements the services of “providing of food and drink; temporary accommodation; accommodation reservations; providing hotel accommodation” in Class 42.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=76B00A97-29BB-4E3C-9F1D-D3F833C978A1</link>
      <guid>76b00a97-29bb-4e3c-9f1d-d3f833c978a1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>SAC confirms that lingerie mark may dilute DARJEELING certification marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Supreme Administrative Court has dismissed Delta Lingerie's appeal against a decision of the Intellectual Property Court in which the latter had cancelled Delta's word mark DARJEELING for goods in Class 25. The lower court had found that the mark was likely to dilute the distinctiveness of the DARJEELING certification marks, which are owned by the Tea Board of India.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=558B7604-8C6A-4B53-B892-2E1FAE851B84</link>
      <guid>558b7604-8c6a-4b53-b892-2e1fae851b84</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Decision could shake up non-use cancellation actions</title>
      <description><![CDATA[A Turkish court has given useful guidance to trademark owners who are facing, or may face, a trademark cancellation action on the grounds of non-use. The court found that the broadcasting of services via the internet or satellite is sufficient to constitute ‘use’ of a trademark under the Turkish Trademark Decree Law, even if the trademark owner has no local presence and is not directly using its trademark in Turkey.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=7051E86C-D4CF-41E3-8782-91A68CEC38F6</link>
      <guid>7051e86c-d4cf-41e3-8782-91a68cec38f6</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>New IP court to be established</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Council of the Federation has approved two bills establishing an intellectual property court within the system of the arbitration (ie, commercial) courts. The new court will deal with two types of cases: disputes over the establishment of IP right and IP infringement cases. The court is due to start operations no later than February 1 2013.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=91E6DD20-A93D-4D36-841C-CDC4CB040579</link>
      <guid>91e6dd20-a93d-4d36-841c-cdc4cb040579</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Court system</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Delhi High Court restrains Chinese entity from using domain name</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In ICICI Bank Ltd v Chuandong Xu, the High Court of Delhi has restrained a Chinese entity from using the domain name 'icicigroup.com'. The court was not swayed by a prior decision of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre in which it was held that the domain name 'icicigroup.com' was not identical, or confusingly similar, to ICICI Bank’s trademark.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=CB08ECE0-1867-4006-9432-EE839EC5031D</link>
      <guid>cb08ece0-1867-4006-9432-ee839ec5031d</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>TWITTER mark held to have ‘impressive’ reputation</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Twitter Inc v HOL Holdings Pty Ltd, the Australian Trademark Office has confirmed that an opposition to an application for a trademark will likely succeed where a similar unregistered trademark has acquired a significant reputation in Australia, even though the unregistered mark has been used for goods or services that are dissimilar to those for which the application is seeking registration.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=9D917F38-8E31-4B76-883D-8B8893B262F3</link>
      <guid>9d917f38-8e31-4b76-883d-8b8893b262f3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>CIRA panel orders transfer based on expanded bad-faith factors</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Glen Raven Inc v Kotarac, a CIRA panel has ordered the transfer of the domain name 'sunbrella.ca' to Glen Raven Inc, the owner of the SUNBRELLA mark. The complaint was decided based on the new version of the CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (version 1.3) that made it more consistent with the UDRP, notably expanding the bad-faith criteria factors.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=2D659E3E-D8FF-4A11-914F-0C4B3A5A9757</link>
      <guid>2d659e3e-d8ff-4a11-914f-0c4b3a5a9757</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>ECJ confirms deadline to substantiate status before OHIM’s boards of appeal</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In OHIM v Nike International Ltd, the ECJ has confirmed the time limits for an appellant before OHIM’s boards of appeal to remedy any deficiencies in the appeal pursuant to Rule 49 of the Community Trademark Implementation Regulation. The ECJ set aside a decision of the General Court finding that the Board of Appeal of OHIM had erred in rejecting Nike’s appeal as inadmissible.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=D2AA9F56-8618-4677-B348-E6EF464313B2</link>
      <guid>d2aa9f56-8618-4677-b348-e6ef464313b2</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Other issues</category><category>Assignment</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Rounded fuchsia cross does not imitate Red Cross emblem</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Barcelona Court of Appeal has dismissed a civil complaint filed by the Spanish Red Cross against Happy Pills SL, a confectionery distributor, for infringement of its rights in the Red Cross emblem. Among other things, the court found that the defendant’s rounded fuchsia cross did not constitute an imitation of the Red Cross.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=FBC184E7-690F-4610-8710-A43E9A3BB707</link>
      <guid>fbc184e7-690f-4610-8710-a43e9a3bb707</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Unfair use</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Levi's obtains judicial protection for double-arc stitching</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Shanghai Pudong District People’s Court has held that Levi Strauss' use of a double-arc stitching in combination with its registered trademark LEVI'S had established a link between the sign and the products in the minds of the consumers. Therefore, the defendants had infringed the 'double-arc stitching' mark by using a similar stitching on jeans.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=E679963D-F3CD-4F39-A9A5-96532968F9B7</link>
      <guid>e679963d-f3cd-4f39-a9a5-96532968f9b7</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>TTAB applies preclusive effect of court decision on distinctiveness</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Zachry Infrastructure LLC v American Infrastructure Inc, the TTAB has provided useful instruction on the preclusive effect of a prior federal court action between the same parties on the issue of distinctiveness. The TTAB gave preclusive effect to the district court’s decision on the issues of descriptiveness and lack of acquired distinctiveness, but held that the court’s decision did not reach the issue of genericness.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=354D6AD7-AE08-4756-B580-37FA2D6471B4</link>
      <guid>354d6ad7-ae08-4756-b580-37fa2d6471b4</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Unregistered mark may serve as basis for refusal of application</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In The Opposition of Guri Import and Export Ltd v Alias Waxman Ltd, the patents, trademarks and designs adjudicator has ruled that an unregistered mark, which is not a well-known mark, may nevertheless serve as the basis for refusal of a trademark application on the grounds of likelihood of confusion.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=5AAC84C3-26BD-4B1B-A980-836A12E3A4DB</link>
      <guid>5aac84c3-26bd-4b1b-a980-836a12e3a4db</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Court considers good-faith use of descriptive trademarks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Second Criminal Court of Guarantee in Santiago has held that use of the word ‘Supreme’ on the packaging of Dilmah tea did not infringe the trademarks SUPREMO and SUPREMA, which are registered for tea and herbal tea in Class 30. The defendants alleged that they did not use the word 'Supreme' to distinguish the origin of the products, but to describe their quality.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=ACE6B7C8-5142-4869-B1A3-7A43E4D983AC</link>
      <guid>ace6b7c8-5142-4869-b1a3-7a43e4d983ac</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>General Court confirms low level of attention of consumers when purchasing food products</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In August Storck KG v OHIM, the General Court has upheld a decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks FAVOLIZIA and RAGOLIZIA, which both covered goods in Class 30. The case confirms that the court will be reluctant to find that consumers have anything but a low level of attention when buying everyday consumer products such as foodstuffs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=58CC24B4-B17A-49CD-8089-1E88394294D9</link>
      <guid>58cc24b4-b17a-49cd-8089-1e88394294d9</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Generics can now legally infringe IP rights over appearance of drugs</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Law 2011-2012, which was published in the Official Journal on December 30 2011, has introduced a new provision in the Public Health Code which will have the effect of stripping pharmaceutical companies of their IP rights over the appearance and/or texture of oral drugs for which patent protection has expired. This is the third time that the legislature has tried to introduce the provision; after two failed attempts, the provision has now become law.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=9B2F22B0-2DBA-4558-9B32-6C9AB01EAA00</link>
      <guid>9b2f22b0-2dba-4558-9b32-6c9ab01eaa00</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category><category>Government/policy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court refuses leave to appeal in parallel importation case</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In American Eagle Outfitters Inc v Hamashbir Department Stores Ltd, the applicants have been denied leave to appeal from a Tel Aviv District Court decision in which the latter had refused to issue an injunction against the parallel importation of AMERICAN EAGLE-branded products.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=E4B9D2E1-EAC9-47A7-8624-397320E8695D</link>
      <guid>e4b9d2e1-eac9-47a7-8624-397320e8695d</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Parallel imports</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Title of single work is not registrable</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Mattel Inc v The Brainy Baby Company LLC, in a precedential decision, the TTAB has considered the distinction between the title of a single work and the title of a series. Among other things, the TTAB held that the title of a single work is not registrable because it merely describes the creative work, rather than identifying its source.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=C4C4E7EF-1282-41D3-ACC0-FAED0580F9C1</link>
      <guid>c4c4e7ef-1282-41d3-acc0-faed0580f9c1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>TPI records UGG as well-known trademark</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Turkish Patent Institute has accepted Deckers Outdoor Corporation's application for the recordal of its UGG mark as a well-known trademark. Deckers had submitted comprehensive evidence to the TPI together with its application, including a reasoned decision of the Fourth IP Court of Ankara stating that UGG is a well-known trademark.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=AF5D328B-EF8B-4121-BBF1-2F758FD01F31</link>
      <guid>af5d328b-ef8b-4121-bbf1-2f758fd01f31</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>New time bar for IP crimes</title>
      <description><![CDATA[As a consequence of the new regulation implemented by Law 5/2010, the Criminal Code has undergone important amendments. Previously, the time bar for IP crimes was three years under normal circumstances, and up to five years where it could be proven that there were aggravating circumstances. The minimum period has now been extended from three to five years, without having to prove the existence of aggravating circumstances.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=43924C34-8657-49AD-88C7-99B51D5E9634</link>
      <guid>43924c34-8657-49ad-88c7-99b51d5e9634</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Court system</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Loss of distinctiveness after registration does not necessarily lead to cancellation</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Beijing Higher People’s Court has ruled that the registered trademark MODAL could not be cancelled based on facts that had occurred after the registration. Lenzing AG had requested the cancellation of the MODAL mark on the grounds that 'modal' had become the generic name of a fibre raw material.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=963B5856-5C07-4662-A40B-F141F4343553</link>
      <guid>963b5856-5c07-4662-a40b-f141f4343553</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Lanc&#244;me denied registration in ‘harsh’ decision</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Court of Patent Appeals has rejected Lanc&#244;me's appeal of a refusal to register the mark MAGNIFIQUE for goods such as perfumes and cosmetics. Among other things, the court held that Swedish consumers would perceive MAGNIFIQUE as an estimation of value and quality, rather than a trademark. This ruling might seem harsh, since Lanc&#244;me’s international registration for MAGNIFIQUE has been accepted in 52 other countries]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=EAACC9B1-6938-49CC-9A07-39E819D20044</link>
      <guid>eaacc9b1-6938-49cc-9a07-39e819d20044</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Federal Circuit holds that plain language of Rule 2.127(d) trumps TTAB’s interpretation</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Benedict v Super Bakery Inc, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a TTAB decision rendering default judgment against the appellant, but rejected the TTAB’s interpretation of Trademark Rule 2.127(d). The appellant had argued that filing a motion for summary judgment automatically stayed other aspects of the pending proceeding, including his obligation to respond to outstanding discovery requests.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=151EF634-59A3-44E9-83CB-23A2F63126AD</link>
      <guid>151ef634-59a3-44e9-83cb-23a2f63126ad</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>‘Fair’ specification of goods considered in revocation proceedings</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property Gmbh &amp; Co Kg v Metro Industries Limited, the hearing officer has rejected in part and granted in part an application for revocation of the mark METRO. Among other things, the hearing offer stated that “[w]hat is important is that the specification is such that the average consumer would deem it fair for the goods or services traded”.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=EB569032-3633-4AE0-9942-91409A53526D</link>
      <guid>eb569032-3633-4ae0-9942-91409a53526d</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>No automatic approval of settlement agreements</title>
      <description><![CDATA[An agreement reached in settlement by the parties to an opposition or cancellation proceeding will not be automatically approved by the Israel Trademarks Office, as the parties found out in Ganor v Musikart Ltd. The adjudicator was not willing to agree to a limitation based on the geographic scope of use of the respective marks.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=50963FB9-4E6D-4D8A-BDBA-3C792F849937</link>
      <guid>50963fb9-4e6d-4d8a-bdba-3c792f849937</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Consent award highlights strength of ADR in current economic climate</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Athens Administrative Court of First Instance has issued a consent award in a five-year-old opposition proceeding involving the Greek trademark CHEESE TWISTER. The issuance of the consent award shows that the country’s current economic climate favours alternative dispute resolution procedures.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=5A323E27-CAC9-4F22-94F9-92D081EE8D1A</link>
      <guid>5a323e27-cac9-4f22-94f9-92d081ee8d1a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Further specialisation of Barcelona Commercial Courts in IP matters</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Spanish Judicial Power Council has agreed that the 10 Commercial Courts of Barcelona will have competence over specific fields of intellectual property. For example, only Commercial Courts Nos 2 and 8 will have competence over trademark, industrial design and copyright matters.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=41B0AFF9-82F7-45D8-A88A-410B36FFA904</link>
      <guid>41b0aff9-82f7-45d8-a88a-410b36ffa904</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Court system</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>FCA affirms ways to evidence control over character or quality of goods</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Shapiro Cohen v Cubatabaco, the Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that there are various ways in which a trademark owner which has licensed the use of its trademark can prove that it has control over the character or quality of the goods/services offered in association with the mark. The case is an important reminder to owners of Canadian trademarks that there are very specific Canadian licensing requirements.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=12B4ADFA-5EF2-417E-B7D0-CD84A6DF4E06</link>
      <guid>12b4adfa-5ef2-417e-b7d0-cd84a6df4e06</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Licensing</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Online sellers of counterfeit goods given severe sentences</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In a case involving the sale of fake adidas products online, the Shanghai Putuo District People’s Court, when calculating the criminal threshold, has added the value of the unsold fake goods seized on the spot to that of the fake goods that were actually sold, which resulted in severe sentences. One of the defendants was condemned to four years in prison, which is rarely seen in IP cases.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=C149E529-8B1F-40F4-AD53-305FF22CB4F1</link>
      <guid>c149e529-8b1f-40f4-ad53-305ff22cb4f1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Internet issues</category><category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Rugby Board fails to retrieve domain name because it does not contain 'rugby'</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Rugby World Cup Ltd v Gyrre, a sole panellist has dismissed the International Rugby Board's complaint against ticket reseller Euroteam AS on the basis that the domain name 'worldcup2011.com' could not be considered confusingly similar to the Rugby Board's marks RUGBY WORLD CUP and RUGBY WORLD CUP 2011, essentially because the dominant term 'rugby' was lacking in the domain name.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=38CECA91-8334-473C-BC2D-597FB3D956C5</link>
      <guid>38ceca91-8334-473c-bc2d-597fb3d956c5</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court provides guidance on how to claim damages</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In an infringement action involving Estonian companies AS Tallegg and AS Maag Grupp, the Supreme Court has provided guidance on how to claim damages and obtain an accounting of profits. Among other things, the court held that the costs incurred by the plaintiff in attempting to settle the case before filing an infringement action should be paid by the infringer.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=1FFBB204-49C3-4469-9F13-E0F1B4B84011</link>
      <guid>1ffbb204-49c3-4469-9f13-e0f1b4b84011</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category><category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Evidence from persons accustomed to dealing in specialised market was required</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Idameneo (No 789) Ltd v Symbion Pharmacy Services Pty Ltd, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has held that, in considering whether a trademark was “capable of being confused with” another mark, the trial judge had erred by deciding this question in the absence of evidence from persons who are accustomed to dealing in the relevant specialised market in which the parties competed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=782EC1CF-7485-48D8-A9A4-6443B4B66CD3</link>
      <guid>782ec1cf-7485-48d8-a9a4-6443b4b66cd3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Licensing</category><category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Bakery restrained from selling newly packaged bread in controversial decision</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In McCambridge Ltd v Joseph Brennan Bakeries, the High Court has granted injunctive relief to McCambridge Ltd restraining Joseph Brennan Bakeries from selling its whole-wheat bread in a new packaging consisting of a re-sealable pack with a dark green rectangle and the BRENNANS mark on the front. The court was satisfied that consumers would associate such packaging with McCambridge’s whole-wheat bread.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=F78667E1-BF5A-4970-BBD0-C502E0E2AB1B</link>
      <guid>f78667e1-bf5a-4970-bbd0-c502e0e2ab1b</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Filling of cans does not amount to trademark use</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH, a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, the ECJ has held that the filling of cans that already bear a sign similar to a trademark does not constitute use of that sign in a way that can be prohibited by the trademark owner.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=98092CDF-2DC3-460D-9E8D-D763C549834C</link>
      <guid>98092cdf-2dc3-460d-9e8d-d763c549834c</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Louis Vuitton’s locking device held to be distinctive for certain goods</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Louis Vuitton Malletier v OHIM, the General Court has partially annulled a decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM finding that Louis Vuitton Malletier's 'locking device' mark was invalid. Among other things, the General Court held that there is no conceptual link between a locking device and an object which is not likely to include a locking device. Therefore, the mark was distinctive for certain goods, such as leather goods in Class 18.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=76E085DB-07E4-4C96-A2EE-326281A3A340</link>
      <guid>76e085db-07e4-4c96-a2ee-326281a3a340</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Country’s largest brewery denied trademark registration</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Rospatent has refused to register the trademark ZATECKY GUS in the name of Baltika Breweries, Russia's largest brewery. The decision was based on the fact that the trademark includes the word ‘Zatecky’, an adjective derived from the word ‘Zatec’, which is the name of a Czech town that produces its own beer under the mark ZATEC.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=95850634-1838-4375-990F-57E74AF87792</link>
      <guid>95850634-1838-4375-990f-57e74af87792</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>TTAB dismisses Rolex’s claim of likelihood of dilution by blurring</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Rolex Watch USA Inc v AFP Imaging Corp, the TTAB, in a precedential opinion, has rejected Rolex Watch USA Inc’s opposition against AFP Imaging Corp Inc’s application to register the trademark ROLL-X for “x-ray tables for medical and dental use”, holding that Rolex had failed to establish a likelihood of dilution of its famous ROLEX trademark by blurring.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=EBC9E3ED-8E18-4F3E-BE82-F7CB87321E9E</link>
      <guid>ebc9e3ed-8e18-4f3e-be82-f7cb87321e9e</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Carlsberg successful on appeal in ‘8’ case</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Carlsberg India Private Limited v Radico Khaitan Limited, the Delhi High Court has allowed Carlsberg India Private Limited's appeal and vacated the partial injunction granted by the single judge against it. The case involved Carlsberg’s PALONE 8 mark for beer and Radico Khaitan Limited’s 8 PM mark for whisky.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=31C9E4EB-B882-41F1-B17C-BEFD6920EEEC</link>
      <guid>31c9e4eb-b882-41f1-b17c-befd6920eeec</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Passing off</category><category>Confusion</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>EU Advisory Group evaluates implementation of Armenia’s IP Strategy</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The EU Advisory Group to the Republic of Armenia has issued a report on the country's progress in implementing its IP strategy, which was ratified by the Armenian government in June 2011. Among other things, the EU Advisory Group commended the work of the Armenian Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy, which plays a central role in coordinating the reform and the enforcement of IP rights.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=33D4AF46-A33C-49E3-BF2C-91D7312526B3</link>
      <guid>33d4af46-a33c-49e3-bf2c-91d7312526b3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category><category>Government/policy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>General Court annuls OHIM decision, but refuses to alter it</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In V&#246;lkl GmbH &amp; Co KG v OHIM, the General Court has annulled a decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM, but rejected the applicant’s request to alter the decision. Among other things, the court held that, although the board’s assessment of the genuine use of the earlier mark was incomplete, it was not within its competence to make its own findings regarding the sufficiency of such evidence.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=C2AE3788-A5D1-40BE-9533-013F330B12A1</link>
      <guid>c2ae3788-a5d1-40be-9533-013f330b12a1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>‘.pl’ domain names see highest growth rate</title>
      <description><![CDATA[NASK, the registry responsible for the Polish ccTLD, ‘.pl’, has published its third quarterly report for 2011. Among the European ccTLDs, ‘.pl’ is the one that has seen the highest growth rate, with 59% of domain names being renewed in the third quarter of 2011, the highest increase noted over the last two years.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=A0399FC8-E70B-43D5-94E4-B0EDC967CAEF</link>
      <guid>a0399fc8-e70b-43d5-94e4-b0edc967caef</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Domain names</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Burden of proving acquired distinctiveness heavier where mark is descriptive</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Israeli Trademark Office has refused to register the trademark TOUR DE ISRAEL for cycling competitions, holding that it was not inherently distinctive and that the applicant had failed to show that the mark had acquired distinctive character. Among other things, the adjudicator reiterated that the burden of proving acquired distinctiveness is heavier where the mark is on the descriptive/generic side of the distinctiveness spectrum.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=5E463916-355F-4F49-8AB9-8EA280902FF7</link>
      <guid>5e463916-355f-4f49-8ab9-8ea280902ff7</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Mark consisting of adverb and geographical term held to be descriptive</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In M&#246;venpick Holding v OHIM, the General Court has upheld OHIM’s refusal on absolute grounds to register the word mark PASSIONATELY SWISS. The court agreed with the Board of Appeal of OHIM that the combination of 'passionately' and 'Swiss' was not inventive, but only reinforced the concept of the mark as a laudatory and promotional statement regarding the quality of Swiss products.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=F7DFFC62-7837-479C-99D2-234DFDF42E9F</link>
      <guid>f7dffc62-7837-479c-99d2-234dfdf42e9f</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>‘Only’ marks not sufficiently similar for relevant public to make connection</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Aktieselskabet af 21 November 2001 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 no likelihood of confusion between the figurative trademark ONLY GYVENCHY for goods in Class 3, and the earlier Danish and Community word marks ONLY for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 an 25.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=84F384C6-096A-4843-A765-B252C63BC5B5</link>
      <guid>84f384c6-096a-4843-a765-b252c63bc5b5</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Enactment of EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement triggers amendments to IP laws</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Following the coming into effect of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement, a number of acts that directly relate to intellectual property have been amended. Among other things, based on the new agreement, 162 European GIs can now be protected in South Korea - these include Chianti, Toscana, Cognac, Scotch whisky, Gorgonzola and Feta.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=A19C23D5-2947-4EE8-8546-997739A96908</link>
      <guid>a19c23d5-2947-4ee8-8546-997739a96908</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Geographical indications/appellations of origin</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>DC Comics fails to prevent registration of superhero character</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Superloans Limited v DC Comics, DC Comics has failed in its attempt to oppose a trademark application for a superhero character in relation to financial services in Class 36. Among other things, the assistant commissioner held that the mark would not be perceived as being from the same stable as the Superman character or any of DC Comics' superhero characters.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=109315C1-936F-4A77-AC33-664B89D1A107</link>
      <guid>109315c1-936f-4a77-ac33-664b89d1a107</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>AG gives opinion on ‘defensive’ Community design registrations</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Advocate General Mengozzi has presented his conclusions in Celaya Emparanza y Gald&#243;s Internacional SA v Proyectos Integrales de Balizamientos SL, a request for a preliminary ruling by Spain’s Community design court. Among other things, the advocate general stated that the holder of a registered Community design should be able to bring an infringement action against the owner of a subsequent registered design without first having to obtain a declaration of invalidity of the subsequent design.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=779B06EA-67FC-4D15-A166-F6839FC0B5D2</link>
      <guid>779b06ea-67fc-4d15-a166-f6839fc0b5d2</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Opposition against national trademark applications now possible</title>
      <description><![CDATA[A year after the opposition procedure was introduced in Montenegro, the first round of pending trademark applications has been published for opposition in the December issue of the Official Bulletin of the Montenegro IP Office. Although it was possible to oppose international trademark applications, this was not previously the case for national trademark applications.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=6859FB6F-8DAC-478A-AA63-69D87B82227E</link>
      <guid>6859fb6f-8dac-478a-aa63-69d87b82227e</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Apple loses its IPAD mark</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Intermediate People’s Court in Shenzhen has rejected Apple’s claim of ownership of the IPAD trademark, holding that Proview Technology Shenzhen Company Limited had a prior registration for the IPAD mark. Apple had argued that an earlier agreement with Proview Electronics Taiwan should be binding on Proview Technology Shenzhen and, therefore, the IPAD mark should have been transferred to Apple.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=BD95D6B5-D711-4943-831D-B2B2E87F5F44</link>
      <guid>bd95d6b5-d711-4943-831d-b2b2e87f5f44</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Registration</category><category>Ownership changes</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>OHIM fails to give 'complete' consideration to goods specification</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Paul Hartmann AG v OHIM, the General Court has upheld an appeal against a decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had refused to register the mark COMPLETE. Among other things, the court pointed out that the fact that goods fall within the same class does not necessarily mean that they form part of a homogenous group, as classes contain a wide variety of goods that are not always closely linked.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=4AD0F07C-E1EB-4DFF-8A21-DDC7360B44EF</link>
      <guid>4ad0f07c-e1eb-4dff-8a21-ddc7360b44ef</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Revamped Trade Descriptions Act introduced</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The Malaysian government has introduced a revamped Trade Descriptions Act, which repealed the Trade Descriptions Act 1972. Among other things, a 'trade description' is now clearly defined as including a registered trademark. In addition, the new act has widened the scope of punishable offences and introduced significantly increased penalties.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=99C313FA-10BD-41E0-84D3-1E7876B7E47E</link>
      <guid>99c313fa-10bd-41e0-84d3-1e7876b7e47e</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category><category>Government/policy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>UDRP proceedings are not easy alternative to court action</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Public Storage v Deer Valley Mini &amp; RV Storage, Public Storage has failed to obtain the transfer of the domain names 'publicstorage-phoenix.com' and 'publicstoragephoenix.com'. The decision illustrates that some WIPO panels may be becoming irritated by complainants taking the UDRP procedure for what it is not: an easy alternative to court action where the outcome depends largely on the panel's opinion.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=350F09DD-F981-45F1-B7CD-D8A8CC6246C9</link>
      <guid>350f09dd-f981-45f1-b7cd-d8a8cc6246c9</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Cybersquatting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Beyond China: the counterfeiting challenge in Southeast Asia</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Beyond China: the counterfeiting challenge in Southeast Asia]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=EB78E187-131F-47ED-8E60-9864C7AE1A20</link>
      <guid>eb78e187-131f-47ed-8e60-9864c7ae1a20</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category><category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Global view</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Global view]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=481421E0-29AF-4EB6-B6CE-3D9D3F94A696</link>
      <guid>481421e0-29af-4eb6-b6ce-3d9d3f94a696</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International</category><category>Enforcement</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=AC295F18-C4FC-4F14-8498-60EC3FC1475C</link>
      <guid>ac295f18-c4fc-4f14-8498-60ec3fc1475c</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=01C235EA-07C3-445D-A140-79BDC6A15BEA</link>
      <guid>01c235ea-07c3-445d-a140-79bdc6a15bea</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Investigating the investigators</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Investigating the investigators]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=BE3DB2CD-3E83-4885-BD0C-7D2AC936C793</link>
      <guid>be3db2cd-3e83-4885-bd0c-7d2ac936c793</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Enforcement</category><category>In-house issues</category><category>Business strategy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: IP TRANSLATOR: OHIM’s class heading approach is wrong</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: IP TRANSLATOR: OHIM’s class heading approach is wrong]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=10F8EBE9-993C-4BEE-AA3B-8DB8DF83DBB6</link>
      <guid>10f8ebe9-993c-4bee-aa3b-8db8df83dbb6</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>IP offices</category><category>Registration</category><category>International procedures</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=91936183-CD1B-4447-BC6D-9AE4935303DC</link>
      <guid>91936183-cd1b-4447-bc6d-9ae4935303dc</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=EBFD4DCA-E906-4631-A467-AABBED6A83A8</link>
      <guid>ebfd4dca-e906-4631-a467-aabbed6a83a8</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=1479D6A3-45EC-41DA-B803-C99D28C7E054</link>
      <guid>1479d6a3-45ec-41da-b803-c99d28c7e054</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=53415ADA-5CB0-4241-8799-EFD62B35B03A</link>
      <guid>53415ada-5cb0-4241-8799-efd62b35b03a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Australia passes controversial legislation; brand owners fight back</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Australia passes controversial legislation; brand owners fight back]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=30DCFC14-CDE7-4B2A-B8F8-56368ABAC31E</link>
      <guid>30dcfc14-cde7-4b2a-b8f8-56368abac31e</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>In-house issues</category><category>Government/policy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Canadian government urged to empower Customs</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Canadian government urged to empower Customs]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=0FB25499-8D8F-40E7-BF52-C8C8F94C95B3</link>
      <guid>0fb25499-8d8f-40e7-bf52-c8c8f94c95b3</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Government/policy</category><category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Master brand or multiplicity? Choosing a branding approach</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Master brand or multiplicity? Choosing a branding approach]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=313F73F6-32F8-4851-AAA0-634C4EFC7BFF</link>
      <guid>313f73f6-32f8-4851-aaa0-634c4efc7bff</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 35: Registration issues</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Registration issues]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=B68D5AD8-D096-48C2-8A22-CA89A21B04E6</link>
      <guid>b68d5ad8-d096-48c2-8a22-ca89a21b04e6</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Trademark management</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Trademark management]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=DAF0AD02-1DEF-4C08-A3F7-90CB40F7BEAC</link>
      <guid>daf0ad02-1def-4c08-a3f7-90cb40f7beac</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Design</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=9F334AB4-F1AC-4B9C-B1BA-5884F235A2E6</link>
      <guid>9f334ab4-f1ac-4b9c-b1ba-5884f235a2e6</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: A special campaign – how efforts to protect China’s knowledge economy will benefit trademark owners</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: A special campaign – how efforts to protect China’s knowledge economy will benefit trademark owners]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=95AB144D-5E4A-4158-90A9-FC5B5A538604</link>
      <guid>95ab144d-5e4a-4158-90a9-fc5b5a538604</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Enforcement</category><category>Government/policy</category><category>National</category><category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Congratulations – you’re a winner! Unless you infringed someone’s IP rights...</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Congratulations – you’re a winner! Unless you infringed someone’s IP rights...]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=D5373E8D-EC79-4ED9-B51D-B895A279B2C7</link>
      <guid>d5373e8d-ec79-4ed9-b51d-b895a279b2c7</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>In-house issues</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Talking point: Industry developments 2011-2012</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Talking point: Industry developments 2011-2012]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=61B26A0E-A2C1-4E53-97FA-4C6CB790308E</link>
      <guid>61b26a0e-a2c1-4e53-97fa-4c6cb790308e</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International</category><category>National procedures</category><category>In-house issues</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=845045E4-36B1-4EEE-B254-EE88209C75E5</link>
      <guid>845045e4-36b1-4eee-b254-ee88209c75e5</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: ECJ’s goods in transit blow to brand owners</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: ECJ’s goods in transit blow to brand owners]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=AF716A9B-911D-4C2D-80BE-942574C3A1D1</link>
      <guid>af716a9b-911d-4c2d-80be-942574c3a1d1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Inside track: Lessons in outsourcing</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Inside track: Lessons in outsourcing]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=CA62163C-4921-481C-82D9-27B9A4D01AAE</link>
      <guid>ca62163c-4921-481c-82d9-27b9a4d01aae</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>IP outsourcing</category><category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>In-house issues</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Reducing expense the right way – best practice in alternative dispute resolution </title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Reducing expense the right way – best practice in alternative dispute resolution ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=60A06050-695E-45AA-8473-422B0E847A9E</link>
      <guid>60a06050-695e-45aa-8473-422b0e847a9e</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>In-house issues</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Trademark Toolkit: enforcement and reputation</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Trademark Toolkit: enforcement and reputation]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=A5FC47D2-F62E-444A-B6B6-A9F6F1E603F0</link>
      <guid>a5fc47d2-f62e-444a-b6b6-a9f6f1e603f0</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Enforcement</category><category>In-house issues</category><category>Brand strategy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=A98DD7FA-8F4A-418C-9DD2-77203A5E83C1</link>
      <guid>a98dd7fa-8f4a-418c-9dd2-77203a5e83c1</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: When bad things happen to good brands</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: When bad things happen to good brands]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=B9FC086C-D605-4AB1-88D2-B106EBD399FA</link>
      <guid>b9fc086c-d605-4ab1-88d2-b106ebd399fa</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Enforcement</category><category>Brand strategy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Counterfeiting perspectives</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Counterfeiting perspectives]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=940B1BF8-475F-4691-A1AA-49B7937047CC</link>
      <guid>940b1bf8-475f-4691-a1aa-49b7937047cc</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Government/policy</category><category>Counterfeiting</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Getting your sub-licensing strategy right</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Getting your sub-licensing strategy right]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=96BE2EBB-D572-4962-A972-543F4239BA62</link>
      <guid>96be2ebb-d572-4962-a972-543f4239ba62</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Licensing</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Local lessons – the brand experience in China</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Local lessons – the brand experience in China]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=5DB5250F-B10A-49D9-A4DB-B7A47E0DC53A</link>
      <guid>5db5250f-b10a-49d9-a4db-b7a47e0dc53a</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Government/policy</category><category>National</category><category>Brand strategy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: The world’s leading trademark firms and practitioners revealed</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: The world’s leading trademark firms and practitioners revealed]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=CA824649-9C10-45A9-AE86-D949132D8EB0</link>
      <guid>ca824649-9c10-45a9-ae86-d949132d8eb0</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Law firm news</category><category>Studies/research</category><category>IP outsourcing</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=BEA0AD04-6DD3-47B3-AFF6-149B0B8CF0E9</link>
      <guid>bea0ad04-6dd3-47b3-aff6-149b0b8cf0e9</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks</title>
      <description><![CDATA[World Trademark Review - Issue 35: Well-known and famous marks]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/issues/article.ashx?g=CD2BA02B-1FEE-4BA8-8160-601770AD8183</link>
      <guid>cd2ba02b-1fee-4ba8-8160-601770ad8183</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>Trademark portfolio management</category><category>Registration</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court finds ‘bull’ marks not to be confusingly similar</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In TC Pharmaceutical Industrial Co Ltd v Bullsone Co Ltd, the Supreme Court has upheld a decision of the IP &amp; IT Court in which the latter had found that the mark BULLSPOWER for goods in Classes 1, 2 and 4 was not confusingly similar to the earlier trademark RED BULL and related 'bulls' device.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=60996F3F-7509-415A-8B13-83EF411F5136</link>
      <guid>60996f3f-7509-415a-8b13-83ef411f5136</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Earlier mark’s weak distinctiveness insufficient to rule out likelihood of confusion</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Monster Cable Products Inc v OHIM, the General Court has upheld a decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trademark MONSTER ROCK for goods in Class 9, and the earlier mark MONSTERS OF ROCK, which also covered goods in Class 9.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=98731244-202D-41DB-85F5-BA77BA6D02A9</link>
      <guid>98731244-202d-41db-85f5-ba77ba6d02a9</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Less similarity required for likelihood of confusion when marks cover identical goods</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Top Tobacco LP v North Atlantic Operating Co Inc, the TTAB has refused to register the mark CLASSIC AMERICAN BLEND for tobacco and tobacco-related products based on the earlier mark CLASSIC CANADIAN for tobacco. Although it recognised that CLASSIC CANADIAN was inherently weak, the TTAB held that, as the goods were identical, the degree of similarity between the marks necessary to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declined.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=0814AB54-39AA-41CF-B4C2-D1AF90C04F96</link>
      <guid>0814ab54-39aa-41cf-b4c2-d1af90c04f96</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Proposed amendments seek to strengthen enforcement of IP rights</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In an effort to further encourage commercial activities based on IP rights, the Ministry of Justice has issued a proposal which aims to strengthen the enforcement of industrial property rights in Norway, and would imply a substantial degree of harmonisation between the Norwegian legislation and the EU IP Rights Enforcement Directive. The most fundamental amendment under the proposal relates to the calculation of damages.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=880A69C5-FF2C-44A3-B431-14E877BE2638</link>
      <guid>880a69c5-ff2c-44a3-b431-14e877be2638</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National</category><category>Government/policy</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>.MUSIC likely to be perceived as music-related TLD</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In In re theDot Communications Network LLC, the TTAB has upheld the decision of the trademark examining attorney of the USPTO to refuse registration on the Principal Register of the mark .MUSIC for domain registration services, various computer-related services and music-related goods. Among other things, the TTAB concluded that the present-day public was likely to perceive .MUSIC as a TLD in the field of music.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=B297FE5F-1A46-4805-AC5B-83F5C9C3FE88</link>
      <guid>b297fe5f-1a46-4805-ac5b-83f5c9c3fe88</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category></category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Board of Appeal failed to carry out specific analysis of CTM’s descriptiveness</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In mPAY24 GmbH v OHIM, the General Court has annulled a decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had cancelled the CTM registration for MPAY24 on the grounds that it was descriptive. The court found that the board had not carried out a specific analysis of the descriptive character of the MPAY24 mark in connection with the goods and services covered by the mark.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=58BD96E7-EA1D-48C0-BC73-58D70555DA72</link>
      <guid>58bd96e7-ea1d-48c0-bc73-58d70555da72</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Cancellation</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Likelihood of confusion found due to common dominant element</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In SE-Blusen Stenau GmbH v OHIM, the General Court has annulled a decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the figurative mark SE SPORTS EQUIPMENT and the earlier mark SE SO EASY, which both covered goods in Classes 18 and 25.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=8865C562-D3B8-4120-88BD-D154FEE56F37</link>
      <guid>8865c562-d3b8-4120-88bd-d154fee56f37</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>International procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Trademark Office considers right to replace affiant in opposition proceedings</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In Gemology Headquarters International v Gemological Institute of America Inc and Mediline Ltd v Reckitt &amp; Colman Ltd, the commissioner has considered the extent to which an affiant, who has submitted an affidavit in opposition proceedings, may be substituted. The decisions suggest that substitution may be permitted even if the new affiant cannot be said to base his/her testimony on exactly the same personal knowledge.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=EF1B6E95-D2C1-47B5-9064-A47A4150E6BA</link>
      <guid>ef1b6e95-d2c1-47b5-9064-a47a4150e6ba</guid>
      <author></author>
      <comments></comments>
      <category>WTR magazine</category>
      <category>National procedures</category><category>Examination/opposition</category>
    </item>
    
    
</channel>
</rss>

