Region: Ireland

THOMSON LEARNING hit by opposition

In <i>Thomson Finance SA v Thomson</i>, a hearing officer at the Irish Trademarks Registry has upheld an opposition filed by Thomson against an application to register the mark THOMSON LEARNING in Classes 9, 16 and 41 of the Nice Classification. The hearing officer held that the mark was likely to cause confusion in the market with Thomson's earlier THOMSON (stylized) mark.

02 February 2007

PEROXYNET opposition to PEROXAL perishes

An Irish Patent Office hearing officer has rejected an opposition to the registration of the mark PEROXAL filed by the owner of the mark PEROXYNET for similar products. The officer held that the 'perox' prefix common to the marks was descriptive of the chemical products to which the marks applied and the other elements were sufficiently distinctive to prevent any likelihood of confusion.

29 January 2007

LPGA device mark revoked on the grounds of non-use

A hearing officer at the Irish Patent Office has ordered the cancellation of the trademark LPGA for goods in Class 28 of the Nice Classification on the grounds that there was no evidence that the mark had been used. He found, among other things, that evidence of the sale in Ireland under a sub-licence of two sets of golf clubs bearing the mark was insufficient proof of genuine use.

20 November 2006

800 FLOWERS powers through against opposition

The Irish High Court has issued a ruling with significant implications for claims of bad faith in Irish oppositions. Overturning a determination of the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks to uphold an opposition against an application for the trademark 800 FLOWERS, the court held that there was no clear evidence on which to conclude that the opponent intended to expand its business into Ireland.

14 November 2006

ASAMAX and ALMAX marks to coexist

The Irish Patent Office has allowed the registration of the mark ASAMAX by Yamanouchi Europe BV in respect of pharmaceutical preparations and medicines in Class 5 of the Nice Classification. The hearing officer rejected an opposition filed by the owner of an ALMAX Community trademark for goods in the same class, finding that there was no likelihood of confusion.

07 November 2006

ATLINKS and ADLINK likely to cause confusion

In <i>Atlinks v AdLINK Internet Media AG</i>, a hearing officer at the Irish Patents Office has upheld an opposition to the registration of the mark ATLINKS for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 38 of the Nice Classification. He held that the mark was likely to cause confusion with an earlier ADLINK mark registered for services in Classes 35 and 38.

02 November 2006

SUNSHINE JUICE squeezed out in opposition action

In <i>Sunshine Juice Limited v Kiely's (Western Distributors) Limited</i>, a hearing officer at the Irish Trademarks Office has refused registration of the device mark SUNSHINE JUICE on the basis that it is confusingly similar to the prior word mark SUNSHINE for identical products. In his view, the fact that the word 'SUNSHINE' is the distinctive feature of both marks was decisive in obviating the visual differences between them.

25 October 2006

Bad faith sinks THE MOUNT JULIET WEIR application

A hearing officer at the Irish Patents Office has allowed an opposition to the registration of the mark THE MOUNT JULIET WEIR. Despite evidence that the applicant owned a piece of real estate partly spanned by the Mount Juliet Weir, the hearing officer held that the application was motivated by dishonest intention and refused the application as having been made in bad faith.

16 October 2006

Articles of IP Rights Enforcement Directive implemented in Ireland

Ireland implemented the European Communities (Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights) Regulations 2006 on July 5 2006. The new regulations bring into effect Articles 5, 8, 10 and 15 of the IP Rights Enforcement Directive, which relate to aspects not previously covered by Irish law.

19 July 2006

Hilfiger blocks use of TOMMY SPORTS

A hearing officer at the Trademarks Registry has allowed Tommy Hilfiger Licensing Inc's opposition to an application to register TOMMY SPORTS. The hearing officer held that the proposed registration was likely to cause confusion with Hilfiger's prior registered TOMMY family of marks under Section 10(2) of the Irish Trademarks Act 1996.

30 June 2006

Unlock unlimited access to all WTR content