Search results

Article type




46,119 results found for your search

Sort options
08 July 2009

LOVECOSME story ends in victory for mark owner

The IP High Court has reversed a decision of the Patent Office in which the latter had invalidated the trademark LOVECOSME. The court ruled that the trademark LOVECOSME was not similar to the earlier registered LOVE trademarks in English or Japanese katakana characters under Article 4(1)(11) of the Trademark Law.

03 July 2009

Statutory damages for passing off awarded in fight over MIG mark

In Geil v Migdor, the Tel Aviv District Court has awarded statutory damages for passing off to the owner of the trademark MIG for publication of a newspaper under the name MIG by a third party before the mark was registered, but refused to award compensation for infringement of the mark after its registration, as it was no longer in use for newspapers.

02 July 2009

Divergent approaches render action unsuitable for summary judgment

In Daimler AG v Sany Group Co Ltd, the High Court has dismissed Daimler AG's application for summary judgment in a dispute over the use of a three-pointed device. The case highlights the divergent approaches taken by the UK Intellectual Property Office and OHIM to class headings.

01 July 2009

Punitive damages for IP infringement recognized for the first time

The Supreme People’s Court has, for the first time, recognized a form of punitive damages for IP rights infringement. Under Article 5 of the Opinion on the Implementation of the National IP Strategy, the Chinese courts may raise compensation awards for the purposes of deterring infringement and lowering the costs of IP enforcement in certain cases.

29 June 2009

Practice direction aimed at streamlining complex litigation issued

The Canadian Federal Court has issued a practice direction aimed at streamlining complex litigation. The practice direction formalizes and extends to all practice areas various initiatives that have recently been implemented informally by the court in the context of IP litigation. Overall, the court's objective is to facilitate, where possible, the scheduling of trials to commence within two years of the start of the proceeding.

26 June 2009

Clothing and sport equipment are similar, says OHIM

In Antonio Riera Fabre v Icon IP Inc, the Opposition Division of OHIM has held that “ready-made textile garments” in Class 25 and "fitness and exercise equipment" in Class 28 were similar. Among other things, the Opposition Division stated that businesses in the area of clothing and sports equipment regularly offer collections of clothing and sporting articles under the same brand family.

23 June 2009

Lack of genuine use fatal for opponent in SCHUHPARK Case

In Schuhpark Fascies GmbH v OHIM, the CFI has upheld a decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had dismissed Schuhpark Fascies GmbH's opposition against the registration of the mark JELLO SCHUHPARK on the grounds that Schuhpark had failed to prove that its earlier trademark SCHUHPARK had been put to genuine use.

22 June 2009

No likelihood of confusion between KING and LA KINGS, says CFI

In NHL Enterprises BV v OHIM, the CFI has annulled a decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had held that the figurative marks KING and LA KINGS for clothing were confusingly similar. Among other things, the CFI held that the choice of clothing products is generally made on a visual basis.

13 May 2009

Spirits International loses US rights to RUSSKAYA mark

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has cancelled the RUSSKAYA mark registration owned by Spirits International BV based on abandonment. The board's decision should serve to remind registrants of both the importance of use of the mark in the United States and the need to have and produce documents proving use, or proving intent to resume use, as well as valid justification for non-use.

11 May 2009

Advocate general speaks out on Community design ownership

Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi has released his opinion in a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spanish Community Design Court. He concluded that the court should apply the Spanish provisions governing the contract between two companies to determine the ownership of the Community designs at issue.

08 May 2009

Variation of the UDRP adopted

NIC Bolivia, the registry responsible for Bolivia's country-code top-level domain, '.bo', has adopted a variation of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The major difference between the UDRP and Bolivia's variation is that under the Bolivian procedure, either registration or use in bad faith must be established.

08 May 2009

Appeal dismissed in long-running ARCOL Case

In Kaul GmbH v OHIM, the CFI has dismissed an appeal in opposition proceedings that have been running for over 10 years. Among other things, the CFI rejected the opponent's argument that the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM had failed to exercise its discretion as to whether to allow new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal.

07 May 2009

'' transfer stalls

In Europcar International SASU v Faure, a WIPO panel has ordered that the domain name '' be cancelled, but found it inappropriate to order the transfer of the domain name to Europcar International SASU. Registrants of '.pro' domain names must certify that they offer professional services and hold credentials from a certifying governmental authority, but Europcar had not provided such certification.

05 May 2009

La Cafetière can continue selling its coffee makers, says court

In Bodum USA Inc v La Cafetière Inc, the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has granted La Cafetière Inc’s motion for summary judgment, finding that a 1991 stock purchase agreement authorized it to sell products similar to the 'Chambord' French press coffee maker in the United States.

05 June 2009

Advocate general delivers opinion in Italian salami case

In Severi v Regione Emilia-Romagna, the advocate general has held, among other things, that the name of a food product containing a geographical reference for which an application has been made for registration as a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication cannot be assumed to be generic, unless the application has been rejected by the European Commission on the grounds that the name has become generic.