In Holzer y Cia SA de CV v EUIPO, the General Court has upheld a decision of the EUIPO finding that Holzer y Cia SA de CV had applied for the registration of two ANN TAYLOR marks in bad faith.
In Dentsply De Trey GmbH v EUIPO, the EU General Court has confirmed that there was no likelihood of confusion between AQUAPRINT on the one hand, and AQUACEM and AQUASIL on the other, in relation to dentistry products.
In a recent case concerning a trademark associated with the footballer Neymar, the General Court has confirmed that the objective circumstances of the case led to the conclusion that the applicant was acting in bad faith when he filed the application for registration of the mark.
The EU General Court has annulled a decision of the EUIPO in which the latter had found that the mark VITA, which means ‘white’ in Swedish, was descriptive and lacked distinctive character for household appliances.
In Sona Nutrition Ltd v EUIPO, the EU General Court has found that the Board of Appeal had erred in law in finding that the word element ‘multiplus’ was devoid of distinctive character in the context of the applicant’s combined word/logo mark.
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.
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.
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.