In the long-running dispute between ice cream manufacturers Emmessís ehf and Kjörís ehf, the Supreme Court of Iceland has upheld a First Appeal Court decision ordering the revocation of Kjörís ehf’s mark TOPPÍS for goods in Class 30. Read more
The Icelandic Intellectual Property Office has dismissed a claim for the cancellation of the mark LJÓSLEIÐARINN on the ground that the claimant had not met the ‘legitimate interests’ condition under Article 30(a) of the Trademarks Act. Read more
The parallel import of pharmaceutical products is permitted under Icelandic trademark law, provided that the product has been put on the market in the EEA by or with the consent of the trademark owner. Read more
In <i>Jens Gudjonsson Ltd v Jensdóttir</i>, the Reykjavik District Court has considered whether the transfer of a business to a private limited company included the transfer of the trademarks used in the business. The decision also clarifies the legal effect of the recordation of an assignment.
A recent Icelandic Patent Office decision serves as a useful reminder that the evaluation of similarity as set out in the Trademarks Act should always involve a nuanced comparison of the marks. Read more
Iceland’s Patent Office has upheld an opposition filed by Consorzio Tutela Vini Emilia – the Italian association for the protection of the GI ‘Emilia’ for wine – against the registration of EMILIANA by a Chilean wine producer. Read more
The Icelandic Patent Office and board of appeal have differed in how to assess the likelihood of confusion between trademarks in Class 5. The board of appeal overturned the patent office's rejection of the TISTELTO mark, concluding that the prefix ‘TI’ made the marks sufficiently different to avoid any danger of confusion pursuant to the Trademarks Act.
The Consumer Agency has ordered the owners of 'kexhotel.is' to cease using the domain name and to cancel their registration. According to the agency, it must have been evident to the owners of 'kexhotel.is' that use of the domain name could violate Kex Hostel’s exclusive rights in its company name and in the domain name 'kexhostel.is'.
The Board of Appeal has overturned a decision of the Patent Office refusing to register the mark APP STORE for goods in Class 9 and services in Class 35 on the grounds that it lacked distinctive character and was descriptive.
In Samba LLC v Sushisamba ehf, the Supreme Court has upheld Samba LLC’s claim for the cancellation of Sushisamba ehf’s registration for the mark SUSHISAMBA. Among other things, the Supreme Court found that Samba LLC had proved beyond doubt that Sushisamba ehf knew or should have known of the existence of Samba LLC's foreign mark when it registered its own mark, and had acted in bad faith under Article 14, Paragraph 1, Item 9 of the Trademarks Act. Read more
The Icelandic Patent Office had held that the word mark SHARING EXPERTISE lacked distinctive character and was descriptive of the goods and services covered. However, the Board of Appeal overturned this decision and accepted registration of the mark.
The Supreme Court has issued a judgment prohibiting Ursus Maritimus Investors from using the word 'ursus' in the company name, trademarks and otherwise in the course of business on the grounds of confusion.
The Board of Appeal has overturned a decision of the Patent Office in which the latter had refused to register the word mark MOLESKINE for goods in Classes 18 and 25 on the grounds that the mark is descriptive of such goods. Among other things, the board held that it was unlikely that registration of the mark would hinder competitors in the same field.
An unregistered mark which otherwise fulfils the requirements for protection under trademark legislation will, through use, enjoy the same protection as a registered mark. Such exclusive rights in an unregistered mark arise when use of the mark commences in trade in Iceland for goods or services.