Search results

Article type

Topic

Sector

Regions

42,480 results found for your search

Sort options
10 June 2008

Pick 'n Pay is crocked by Crocs

In Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of South African Revenue Services, the High Court has refused to set aside a warrant for the seizure of Crocs shoes imported by Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd. Among other things, the court held that the magistrate had correctly found that there were reasonable grounds for believing that an act of counterfeiting had taken, was taking or was likely to take place.

09 June 2008

When does a copy not constitute passing off?

In T-Rex Véhicules Inc v 6155235 Canada Inc, the Quebec Court of Appeal has held that although T-Rex Véhicules Inc had a valid trademark right in the design of its T-Rex three-wheel vehicle, there was no likelihood that consumers would be led to believe that the defendants' G-2 vehicles and the T-Rex vehicles came from the same source.

09 June 2008

New Intellectual Property Law enters into force

Iran's new Intellectual Property Law, which represents a complete overhaul of the country's IP system, has entered into force. Among other things, the new law details the grounds on which an application for the registration of a trademark or a trademark registration may be contested.

03 April 2008

Round two for BUKHARA Case in Second Circuit

In ITC Limited v Punchgini, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld an award of summary judgment in favour of the defendants in light of the response of the New York Court of Appeals on the applicability of the 'famous marks' doctrine under state law.

02 April 2008

Ninth Circuit amends HOT WHEELS decision

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has amended its August 2 2007 opinion in Jada Toys Inc v Mattel Inc, which reversed and remanded a district court decision granting summary judgment in favour of Jada Toys Inc. The amended opinion applies the new standards of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, instead of those set forth in the Federal Trademark Dilution Act.

02 April 2008

Massachusetts Institute of Technology wins fight over MIT mark

The Taipei High Administrative Court has dismissed an appeal against a decision to refuse registration of the trademark MIT EDUCATION GROUP MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY, MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE EDUCATION on the grounds that there was a likelihood of confusion with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's famous mark MIT.

26 March 2008

SIPO's request for review rejected by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has rejected a request for review of an Administrative Court decision filed by the Slovenian Intellectual Property Office. The Supreme Court held that SIPO had no legal standing to request the review under the provisions of the new Act on Administrative Disputes.

25 March 2008

Customs not up to the mark in WELLA Case

The Commercial Court has dismissed an action filed by the Customs Authority on the grounds that the latter had failed to prove that hair care products bearing the mark WELLAFLEX infringed the trademarks WELLA and WELLAFLEX. The decision highlights the fact that the authority must establish a chain of evidence in order to prove that goods are counterfeit.

25 March 2008

Debate on time limits in cancellation actions put to an end

The General Assembly of the Court of Appeals has put an end to the debate as to the interpretation of the term 'date of registration' in Articles 14 and 42 of the Trademark Law 556. The court held that the date on which the last act of the registration procedure is carried out shall be deemed to be the date of registration of a trademark for the purpose of determining the limitation period in cancellation actions.

18 March 2008

'Red Crystal' emblem provided with additional trademark protection

Bill C-61, which implements the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12 1949 and Relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III), has entered into force. The bill makes changes to a number of existing laws, including the Trademarks Act.

18 February 2008

Irreparable harm must be demonstrated in injunction cases

In Hyundai Auto Canada v Cross Canada Auto Body Supply (West) Limited, the Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that, in the absence of clear evidence of irreparable harm which cannot be compensated in damages, the courts will refuse to grant interlocutory injunctions.

14 February 2008

IDEA and IKEA are not similar, says CFI

In Inter-Ikea Systems BV v OHIM, the CFI has upheld a decision by the Board of Appeal of OHIM which set aside a decision by the Cancellation Division declaring that the figurative mark IDEA was invalid. Among other things, the CFI held that as the verbal element 'idea' of the contested trademark is recognized immediately, this outweighs any aural similarity between IDEA and the earlier mark IKEA.

13 February 2008

A mark that has been revoked can be cancelled

In T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v O2 Holdings Ltd, the appointed person has held, among other things, that the fact that a party has made an application for revocation of a trademark on the grounds of non-use under Section 46 of the Trademarks Act does not as a matter of course preclude that party from subsequently applying for a declaration of invalidity of the same mark under Section 47.

12 February 2008

Court of Appeal denies protection to single colour

In British American Tobacco Kenya Ltd v Cut Tobacco Kenya Ltd, the Court of Appeal has held that there can be no proprietary rights in a particular colour and, in general, in words that are descriptive of goods. The case contains an interesting analysis of how the laws on trademark infringement and passing off are applied in Kenya.

12 February 2008

CFI ignores coexistence agreement in OMEGA Case

In Omega SA v OHIM, the CFI has dismissed an appeal against a decision to uphold an opposition against the registration of the combined figurative and word mark OMEGA. In doing so, the CFI explicitly ignored the coexistence agreement between the parties, stating that "[t]he agreement is irrelevant to the assessment of the likelihood of confusion in the present case".