EVOLUTION case highlights issues arising from interpretation of Article 8(1)(b)
In International Gaming Projects v EUIPO, the General Court has confirmed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the figurative mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION and the earlier word mark EVOLUTION, which both covered goods in Class 28 and services in Class 41. That conclusion could not be called into question by the applicant’s argument that, in the gaming and entertainment sector, consumers instinctively approach the machine they find most attractive, without referring to its name.
To read more
Register for limited access
Register to receive our weekly newsletter and access two of our subscriber-only articles per month.
Subscribe and start reading now
Subscribe for unlimited access to articles, in-depth analysis and research from the WTR experts.
Already have access? Login below
Copyright © Law Business ResearchCompany Number: 03281866 VAT: GB 160 7529 10