In John Mills Ltd v EUIPO, the EU General Court has ruled that Article 8(3) of Regulation 207/2009, which aims to prevent the misuse of a mark by the trademark proprietor’s agent, applies only if the marks are identical.
In Apple and Pear Australia Ltd v EUIPO, the EU General Court has annulled a decision that had previously gone in favour of Pink Lady America in its trademark dispute with other fruit organisations in the European Union.
A new academic paper has found that researchers and policymakers should make more use of trademark portfolio data – even using such information instead of patent data in some instances.
In a blow to energy drinks giant Red Bull, the EU General Court has annulled a EUIPO decision declaring that the mark FLÜGEL was invalid for “alcoholic beverages” due to a likelihood of confusion with Red Bull’s earlier VERLEIHT FLÜGEL marks for “energy drinks”.
In LA Superquimica SA v EUIPO, the EU General Court has confirmed that the applicant had failed to show use of the earlier mark TACK in the form under which it had been registered or in a form that could be regarded as acceptable.
In Grendene SA v EUIPO, the General Court has confirmed that there was no likelihood of confusion between the mark HIPANEMA for jewellery and earlier IPANEMA marks for footwear.
In Puma SE v EUIPO, the EU General Court has provided useful guidance on the scope of protection of marks with an exceptionally high reputation.
In Ntolas v EUIPO, the EU General Court has confirmed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark GN LABORATORIES for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30, and the earlier mark GNC for goods and services in Classes 5, 29 and 35.
The EU General Court has confirmed that there was a likelihood of confusion between Novartis AG’s mark AKANTO and Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA’s earlier mark KANTOS for goods in Class 5.
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.
Practitioners need to be aware of the differences between obtaining protection for smell, taste and texture marks in the European Union and the United States.
With non-traditional trademark registrations on the rise, a nuanced understanding of the differences between obtaining protection in the European Union and the United States is crucial.
Following a rise in non-traditional trademark registrations, practitioners should be aware of the differences between obtaining protection in the European Union and the United States.
The EU General Court has annulled a decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO insofar as it had found a likelihood of confusion between SAFARI CLUB and WS WALK SAFARI for certain goods in Classes 18 and 25.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has issued its decision in a case involving Birkenstock’s application to register a figurative mark representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines.