Legal updates

28 Jun 2017

Glaxo’s colour trademark still found invalid

United Kingdom - In Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd v Sandoz Ltd the Court of Appeal confirmed the invalidity of an EU trademark registration for two shades of the colour purple, on the grounds that it did not meet the requirements for graphic representation of a trademark. Read update

28 Jun 2017

Guidelines issued for determination of well-known mark

India - The new Indian Trademarks Rules 2017 came into effect on March 6 2017. Among other things, modalities for determination of well-known trademarks have been laid out for including the mark in the list of well-known marks maintained by the Indian Trademarks Registry. Read update

27 Jun 2017

Fourth Circuit upholds hair-raising decision on likelihood of confusion

United States - The Fourth Circuit has upheld a decision that there was no likelihood of confusion between two competing haircare products displaying 450 on their labels. The court focused its analysis on the strength of the plaintiff’s mark, similarities between the marks, intent and evidence of confusion. Read update

27 Jun 2017

Israel Patent Office – 2016 Annual Report

Israel - The recently published 2016 Annual Report by the Israeli Patent Office (ILPO) summarises its activities and contributions to the IP environment in Israel. An interesting part of the report is dedicated to actions which aim to improve ILPO efficiency. Such actions include, among others, the transition to online services and investment in human resources. Read update

26 Jun 2017

Avoiding confusion held to be of most importance

Chile - The Chilean Supreme Court recently stated that when deciding trademark cases, the courts must endeavour to avoid any possibility of confusion. This seminal decision confirms that the classification of goods and services and the legislative dispositions are always subordinate to this principle. Read update

26 Jun 2017

Prohibition of ‘derogatory’ marks held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

United States - The Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Matal v Tam, unanimously holding the disparagement clause in the Lanham Act unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the First Amendment. This decision upends over 70 years of practice and will likely have an immediate effect on other pending ‘derogatory’ mark cases. Read update

Close

Register for more free content

  • Read more World Trademark Review blogs and articles
  • Receive the editor's weekly review by email
Register now  
Issue 67