In our latest edition, we look at Phillip Plein's attempt to use unrest in the United States to end a trademark battle with Ferrari, Netflix and the US Armed Forces in a tussle over Space Force, Victoria Beckham settling a dispute, and much more.
In our latest round-up, we look at counterfeit Rolex watches being seized in Philadelphia, WIPO giving an update on World IP Day, preparing for a trademark filing flurry linked to Harry and Meghan, and much more.
The EUIPO’s 2019 Status Report on IPR Infringement reveals that the annual sales lost due to counterfeiting in Denmark amount to €828 million, which represents 4.2% of the total sales in the 11 sectors covered by the report. Read more
The Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court has upheld a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office dismissing an invalidity action filed by Puma against a registered trademark consisting of a stripe. Read more
The global trade in counterfeit and pirated goods is more than just an ever-present nuisance for rights holders, legitimate businesses and consumers – it is a threat to public health, economic growth and global legitimate trade. Apart from direct action against sellers, importers and manufacturers, the most important legal remedies at hand are border measures.
Following the preliminary ruling issued by the ECJ earlier this year in <I>Blomqvist v Rolex SA</I>, which involved the importation of a single counterfeit watch from China for personal use, the Danish Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Rolex. Among other things, the Supreme Court held that the suspension of the watch was lawful and that destruction of the watch without payment of compensation was permitted.
Following its 2012 hearing in <i>Blomqvist v Rolex</i>, the Supreme Court decided to refer preliminary questions to the ECJ. This matter, which involved the import of a single fake Rolex watch bought by a private citizen for his own use from a Chinese internet store, attracted worldwide attention. The court has now issued a document detailing the questions.
The Supreme Court has made a number of alterations to decisions of the Maritime and Commercial Court ordering fashion houses Gucci and Bottega Veneta to pay compensation to an importer that they had accused of marketing counterfeit goods and trademark infringement. Among other things, the court found that Gucci's rights had not lapsed due to passivity, even though the imitations had been in the market for a number of years.
When an adult film star announced a contest via Twitter offering sexual gratification for anyone who built her the best LEGO creation, it was perhaps no surprise that the competition received many submissions from fans wishing to meet Christy Mack. Equally unsurprising is that LEGO’s trademark team quickly swung into action. The dispute shows the benefit of taking a bespoke approach to social media brand protection.
In <i>Poul Stig Briller A/S v Poul Stig Holding A/S</i>, the Maritime and Commercial Court has considered whether the transfer of a company included the transfer of its trademarks. The case confirms that, when a whole company is transferred and there is no agreement to the contrary, the trademarks and domain names of the company are also transferred, even if the rights relate to the seller's name.
In a dispute over the use of the designation ‘Tivoli’ for a chair created in 1955 by designer Verner Panton, the Maritime and Commercial Court has ruled in favour of Tivoli A/S, which owns the Tivoli Amusement Park in Copenhagen. The court found that, although Tivoli might not have raised objections against Panton's use of the designation in the past, this did not give Panton's heirs the right to use the designation.
Denmark’s amended Trademark Act came into force at the start of 2019, maintaining the possibility of establishing a trademark right through use - in particular, parties must be able to prove that such use is of more than local significance. This is something that caused difficulties in a recent case involving two similar restaurant marks. Read more
In an unusual trademark case concerning a blue-and-white checked pattern used on bed linen, the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court has ruled in favour of Hästens Sengar AB, which sued the Nordicform group of companies for infringement. The court held that the pattern had acquired distinctiveness through use and the relevant consumers were expected to show a high degree of attention due to the character and price of Hästens beds.
The Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court has upheld an appeal board ruling on the scope of protection for the reputed trademark ECCO. It stated that the use of registered trademarks by a non-competing commercial foundation would not result in the unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the mark's repute.
A reminder that the industry is still feeling the impact of the global economic crisis came this week with the news that Tove Graulund, former chair of MARQUES, has left her position as director of trademarks at European firm Zacco.
The Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court has found that a registered mark infringed an earlier unregistered mark, as its use on the virtual marketplace could cause confusion and the right of a person to use his or her own name in the course of trade does not apply to the owner of a limited company.
As of March 1 2015, all registrants of ‘.dk’ domain names are required to have their name and address data validated by DK Hostmaster, the Danish domain name registry, where technically feasible and reasonable. The registry will anonymise the WHOIS data of individuals who are registrants of ‘.dk’ domain names under certain circumstances, which could be problematic for brand owners when it comes to enforcement actions.
In <I>Samsonite IP Holdings Sàrl v Helm I/S</I>, the Maritime and Commercial Court has prohibited Helm, a Samsonite dealer, from using the designations 'Samshop' and 'Samshop.dk' in connection with the sale of suitcases and bags. Although the court found that there was no violation of Samsonite's trademark rights, it held that Helm's actions violated Sections 1 and 18 of the Marketing Act.
In <i>Prelatura Del Opus Dei Region de España v Dema Games ApS</i>, the Maritime and Commercial Court has considered whether Dema Games ApS' use of the designation 'Opus-Dei: Existence After Religion' implied a violation of the Prelatura Del Opus Dei Region de España's rights in the CTM OPUS DEI. Among other things, the court refused to find that the OPUS DEI mark was well known in Denmark.
As Denmark is an EU member state, the laws governing design protection in Denmark have largely been harmonised with and are similar to those in the rest of the European Union. However, there are key differences. Read more
As Denmark is an EU member state, the laws governing design protection in Denmark have largely been harmonised with and are similar to those in the rest of the European Union. Both the Design Act and the EU Community Designs Regulation (6/2002) apply to design rights in Denmark. Read more
In Denmark, it is possible to protect design rights by filing an application for: a national design right with the Danish Patent and Trademark Office; a registered Community design with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market; or an international design registration designating the European Community via the Hague System with the World Intellectual Property Organisation.
The global trade in counterfeit and pirated goods is more than just an ever-present nuisance for rights holders, legitimate businesses and consumers – it is a threat to public health, economic growth and global legitimate trade.
In <I>Unilever NV v Coop Danmark A/S</I>, the High Court has found that the defendants had not violated Unilever's BIO-TEX mark by using the word mark D'OR-TEX for identical products. However, the court held that the defendants' D'Or-Tex products risked diluting the reputation and market position of BIO-TEX and granted an injunction in favour of Unilever.
In <I>Sangenic International Limited v Lamico ApS</I>, the Maritime and Commercial Court has considered whether the depiction of a registered design infringed the design right. Sangenic filed suit against Lamico because the latter had included a small drawing of Sangenic’s bin, which is protected by a registered Community design, on its labels.