A bifurcated system exists in Greece. The Trademark Office and the administrative courts are exclusively competent for all matters related to the existence and cancellation of marks, including oppositions and invalidity actions.
A recent decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in London provides useful guidance for manufacturers whose distributors have been sued and who want to redress the situation by seeking declaratory relief.
In France, arbitration is available for most trademark litigation. However, arbitration for the validity of a trademark remains uncertain as it may be considered a public policy matter, and there is no case law on this point.
Alternative dispute resolution methods exist; however, they play only a minor role in Germany. One reason is Germany’s efficient court system, which allows for settling trademark conflicts quickly and at reasonable costs.
In a case involving a Community design owned by the Robin Ruth Group, a Spanish trial court has sentenced the defendant for committing a crime against intellectual property under Article 273.3 of the Criminal Code.
In Chapter 4 Corp d/b/a Supreme v Cheikh, the High Court of Nanterre in France has ruled in favour of US company Chapter 4, the owner of the well-known mark SUPREME for clothing.
In a rare decision, the EU General Court has found that C=Holdings BV, the owner of the mark C=COMMODORE, had proper reasons for non-use of the mark.
In a landmark judgment, Irish fast food chain Supermac’s has prevailed in a dispute with McDonald’s over the use of the BIG MAC trademark.
Mediation is now mandatory in Turkey for actions relating to commercial receivables, which cover certain types of IP disputes.
In our latest news digest, we look at the USPTO hiring a deputy general counsel, how domain name management is “just as important” as brand protection, the Paraguay IPO pledging more counterfeit enforcement in 2019, and much more.
In a dispute between two mobile phone companies, the EU Trademark Court Number 1 of Alicante has confirmed that importing goods that were originally intended to be marketed outside the European Economic Area without the trademark owner's consent constitutes infringement.
In a dispute over the use of the name ‘Champagner Sorbet’, the German Federal Supreme Court has held that the burden of proving that the ingredient Champagne does not determine the taste of ‘Champagner Sorbet’ rests on the claimant, a French association of Champagne producers.
The legal framework relating to industrial designs in Spain is circumscribed, as far as national legislation is concerned, to Law 20/2003 on the Legal Protection of Industrial Designs (7 July 2003) and the Regulation for the Implementation of Law 20/2003 on the Legal Protection of Industrial Designs, approved by Royal Decree 1937/2004 (7 September 2004).
The EU General Court has annulled a EUIPO decision revoking the mark SPINNING for “exercise equipment” and “exercise training” services. The decision highlights the importance of showing consumers of goods as being both sophisticated and lay.
Designs are protected by the new Industrial Property Law (6769), which entered into force on 10 January 2017. According to the new law, both registered and unregistered design protection is available for new and distinctive designs.