The Court of Justice of the European Union has confirmed that declarations made under Article 28(8) of Regulation 207/2009 during the transitional period following IP TRANSLATOR do not add new goods/services to the scope of protection of a trademark.
The appointed person has put an end to a trademark dispute between Tailor & Cutter (Cambridge) Limited, a bespoke tailor based in England, and multinational retail corporation Walmart Apollo LLC.
In Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO, the EU General Court has confirmed that there was a likelihood of confusion between two TRIUMPH word marks for goods in Classes 9, 12 and 25.
In Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation v Jain, the Bombay High Court has decided to make an example of the defendants and imposed hefty costs of Rs50 million.
The High Court has upheld a decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office finding that the application for TRUMP TV, filed by ‘trademark troll’ Michael Gleissner in the name of Trump International Limited, had been made in bad faith.
In Beiersdorf AG v Koni Multinational Brands (Pty) Ltd, the South African High Court has considered the use by one party of a get-up that was a composite of various get-ups used by another party.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled 8-1 in Mission Product Holdings v Tempnology LLC, with one legal expert telling WTR that the ruling helps to create a more stable trademark licensing market.
The Israel Patent and Trademark Office has considered an interesting dispute concerning several marks registered in the name of two major Russian confectionery manufacturers for sweets from the Soviet era.
A dispute between Bega Cheese and Kraft Foods in Australia has been resolved with the Federal Court awarding Bega the exclusive rights to use a distinctive yellow, red and blue packaging to market its peanut butter.
A recent case in India has addressed the question of whether a licensee can claim rights in a licensed mark when faced with the termination of the licence agreement.
In Swagway LLC v International Trade Commission, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that trademark decisions of the International Trade Commission, like its patent decisions, do not have preclusive effect.
In a dispute between wine and spirits producers Kantina and Adol, the Slovenian Supreme Court has set aside the first and second-instance decisions, which had rejected a non-infringement action filed by Kantina on formal grounds.
The UK Intellectual Property Office has issued a somewhat unexpected decision in a case involving an application for the label mark GLENFIELD by an India-based drinks company owner, which was opposed by Scotch whisky distiller William Grant & Sons.
In Lupu v EUIPO, the EU General Court has confirmed that, within the context of opposition proceedings, relative grounds for refusal cannot be raised after the expiry of the term prescribed by law.
In Sköld v Galderma Laboratories LP, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has addressed the issue of trademark ownership under since-terminated development and commercialisation agreements.