A joint study between the European Patent Office and the EU Intellectual Property Office has evidenced a clear correlation between the success of small to medium-sized businesses and their utilisation of intellectual property.
On Monday, the Court of Justice of the European Union holds a hearing in the closely followed Skykick case. We look at how this case could have a significant impact on trademark practice.
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.
The EU General Court has upheld an appeal by Inditex, the owner of the mark ZARA, finding that use of the figurative ZARA mark would give rise to a risk of unfair advantage being taken of Inditex’s mark.
As the use of distinctive and non-traditional signs continues to evolve, EU legislation now allows for objects, actions and patterns, among others, to be registered as trademarks, with a key focus on trade dress.
In Hesse v EUIPO, the EU General Court has upheld a decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO in revocation proceedings involving the mark TESTA ROSSA, rejecting arguments relating to proof of use and equal treatment.
The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in The Green Effort Limited v EUIPO shows that the calculation of time limits is critical to every case and that the courts will not hesitate to enforce such time limits.
The Opposition Division of the EUIPO has partially upheld an opposition against the registration of the figurative mark SO DIVINE due to a likelihood of confusion with earlier SO…? LOVELY marks.
The EU General Court has annulled a decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO in which the latter had found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trademarks BALEA and ALBÉA.
In Užstato sistemos administratorius VŠĮ v EUIPO, the EU General Court has confirmed that there was a likelihood of confusion between two purely figurative marks for recycling-related services.
The decision of the EU General Court in Prim SA v EUIPO is likely to influence how the errors and/or omissions of opposing parties will be handled, knowing that keeping quiet about such issues in EUIPO proceedings may ultimately backfire.
Following a request for a preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice of the European Union has considered the requirements relating to the graphic representation of a sign and those relating to the distinctive character of a colour mark.
In IQ Group Holdings Bhd v EUIPO, the EU General Court has provided valuable guidance on the assessment of the similarity of goods and services, especially with regard to distribution channels and the sale of products online.
In Julius-K9 Zrt v EUIPO, the EU General Court has clarified how to assess the dominant and distinctive character of the elements that make up a composite trademark in the context of an opposition based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.