Search results

In Gugler v EUIPO, the EU General Court has held that the economic link between the parties on the date on which the application for registration of the contested mark was filed precluded a finding of likelihood of confusion.

The Administrative Court of Lazio in Italy has issued an important decision concerning the parallel importation of medicinal products which are placed on the market in the European Union under different trademarks.

The Swiss Federal Administrative Court has agreed with the Federal Institute of Intellectual Property that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks IMPERIAL and TIERRA IMPERIAL in Class 33.

In a victory for Apple Inc, the EU General Court has annulled a decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO in which the latter had found that the figurative mark APO was not similar to Apple’s earlier marks.

In a ruling that sits uncomfortably with its earlier decision in Windsurfing Chiemsee, the Court of Justice of the European Union has rejected the notion that the name of a famous Bavarian castle could serve as a geographic indication for the relevant goods/services. 

The decision in Massimo Osti v Global Design shows that the choice of bringing a case in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court or the High Court of England and Wales is not always within the control of the claimant.

Unregistered marks benefit from the same protection as registered ones if they are commonly known within Poland. 

In order to obtain protection, an unregistered sign must have distinctive character and must have been used in commerce. No specific statutory conditions outline the extent and type of use that will satisfy these criteria.

The Benelux Convention does not provide for protection of unregistered trademarks, the only exception being the protection of well-known marks as prescribed by the Paris Convention.

Italy has a first-to-file system, therefore unregistered trademarks enjoy a lesser degree of protection than registered trademarks. Only in exceptional circumstances can an unregistered trademark prevail over a later registered trademark.

Commercial designations are protected against newer identical or confusingly similar trade designations and trademarks once they are first used in Germany, but details of this protection can be complex.

Any natural person or legal entity can apply for a French trademark before the French Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (INPI). The application can be filed by the owner itself or its representative.

Ukraine’s Supreme Court has upheld decisions of the lower courts finding that the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement - which provides for a five-year non-use grace period, as opposed to three years under the national law - applied with direct effect.

In Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd v Duma Forklifts NV, the Court of Justice of the European Union has considered the issue of de-branding and re-branding of goods imported into the European Union.

In Frank Industries Pty Ltd v Nike Retail BV, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in London has found that Nike had infringed Frank Industries' trademark registrations for LNDR by using the sign LDNR in an advertising campaign.