FRIDAY, 5 FEBRUARY 2016
ZARA: Inditex appeal heads for CJEU.

There's a new Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case ahead: it's a Community trade mark appeal, Case C-575/15 P: Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. (Inditex) v OHIM. The appeal involves an opposition: in Case T-584/14 the General Court dismissed an action against the revocation of a Community trade mark.

The General Court decision is available so far only in French and Spanish, but the mark at stake appears to be ZARA.

Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 22.17
Tags: CJEU appeal, Community trade mark, opposition,
0 Comments    Post a comment
FRIDAY, 5 FEBRUARY 2016
EDB Forum 2016: save the date!

Our friends at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) are dellighted to announce that their next Enforcement Database (EDB) Forum will take place in their lovely premises in Alicante on 28 and 29 June.  

This year’s Forum is specially dedicated to looking at counterfeiting from the enforcement perspective. Customs and Police officers of the 28 EU Member States, DG Taxud, Europol, OLAF [no, Disney fans, it's sadly not THE Olaf] and WCO will be in attendance to give right holders an insight into their work and what information they need to identify fake products.

The exhibition of counterfeit products will be running again this year, where rights holders can show counterfeit copies of their goods to enforcers, and show where this information can be found in the EDB.

Further details will available in due course. Meanwhile, save the date!

Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 14.56
Tags: EDB Forum 2016,
0 Comments    Post a comment
THURSDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2016
Germany: BGH confirms work title protection for smartphone-apps

In “wetter.de” (I ZR 202/14) the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on 28 January 2016 held that the names of websites and smartphone-apps may per se be protectable as “work titles under  Section 5 of the German Trade Mark Act (MarkenG), which concerns the protection of “commercial designations” and provides as follows:

(1) Company symbols and titles of works shall enjoy protection as commercial designations.

(2) Company symbols are signs used in the course of trade as a name, company name or special designation of a business operation or an enterprise. Business symbols and other signs intended to distinguish the business operation from other business operations which are regarded as symbols of the business operation within involved trade circles shall be deemed equivalent to the special designation of a business operation.

(3) Titles of works are the names or special designations of printed publications, cinematic works, music works, stage works or other comparable works.

In the context of infringement proceedings relating to the smartphone-app “wetter.de”, the BGH recently held that domain names relating to internet services and apps for mobile devices, such as smart phones, can - in principle - be protected as work titles (Werktitel) under Section 5(3) MarkenG.

However, the sign “wetter.de” (comment: the German word "Wetter" translates into weather) was however not found distinctive enough to fall within the ambit of this protection  since it was found to be directly descriptive (“glatt beschreibend “)  of the content of the "work", with the website and app “wetter.de” providing weather forecast information.

The court acknowledged that the level of distinctiveness required under Section 5(3) MarkenG may in certain circumstances be low, this notably where consumers have been educated to regard descriptive titles and where consumers would thus pay heightened attention and notice even small differences, e.g. in the field of newspapers and magazines, which tend to have less distinctive “colourless” generic titles, which are specified by their geographical origin or content.These principles could however not be directly applied to the names of websites and smartphone-apps, where a market recognition of at least 50% percent was required to achieve acquired distinctiveness and protection under Section 5(3) MarkenG.

The court’s press release No. 26/2016 can be found here.

Posted by: Birgit Clark @ 13.46
Tags: work title, German trade marks, BGH, acquired distinctiveness,
0 Comments    Post a comment
FRIDAY, 29 JANUARY 2016
General Court: can Simba have the monopoly over "playthings"?

In Case T-687/14, the General Court confirmed OHIM's decision that Simba might stay "king of the jungle" for toys and playthings, albeit not exclusively for a lion…

The following opposition was upheld by both OHIM and the General Court:

Novomatic AG - Applicant

Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG -earlier German mark

Image not found

Image not found

Class 28'vending machines and gambling machines, exclusively for commercial use in casinos and amusement arcades, or games of chance, with or without payment of winnings via the Internet or telecommunications networks , gambling with or without payment of winnings for use in telecommunications apparatus; slot machines, housings for slot machines, vending machines and gaming machines, with the exception of children's play.

Class 28- Playthings, except stuffed animals

 

First,  the request for proof of genuine use of the earlier mark was admissible and the evidence submitted by the opponent permitted to establish such use during the relevant period, ie from April 2006 to April 2011 for products covered by the earlier mark. 

Second, OHIM had found that all the applied for goods were identical to the earlier goods in Class 28. The General Court disagreed, finding that the BoA had used an overly broad definition of th" playthings" and held that the gaming machines and games of chance via telecommunications means were not identical to the "toys except stuffed animals" but had some similarity (par. 47-70)

Third, the marks in question contained the distinctive element 'Simba', which has no meaning for the relevant German consumer;  the element 'african' of the mark applied for had a weak distinctive character as the item "Simba" as it would be understood by the German public as an indication of African descent and, thirdly, on the one hand the figurative element of the earlier mark consisting of a representation of an elephant, is secondary and, secondly, that the figurative elements of the mark consisting of the representation of a head lion, a configuration of the background and stylized word elements, failed to divert the attention of the consumer from the identical word element 'Simba', since they were not striking or by their size or by their positioning at the point of being able to dominate the overall impression of the mark, or they were not distinctive. 

Thus, visually, even if the marks were distinguished by their length and their figurative elements, there was an average similarity between them. Regarding the comparison of the marks on the phonetic level, the similarity was more important, since the graphics were not considered. Regarding the comparison of the marks conceptually, the BoA had found that the signs in question have no meaning in German, a conceptual comparison of the marks was not possible. However, the Court held that the consumer would understand the meaning of African close to the German equivalent word. Nevertheless overall¸ the GCconsidered that the difference in concept between the conflicting marks does not neutralize the similarity between them visually and phonetically.

Fourth, gaming items consumers would show a normal degree of attention, while the level of attention of consumers in the field of professional gambling was high. Thus, given the low degree of attention of consumers of gaming items, it was appropriate to consider the level of attention of these when assessing the likelihood of confusion. 

Fifth, the relevant public would perceive the word 'Simba', which is identical to the marks, as an autonomous and distinctive element believe that the goods in question come from economically linked undertakings. 

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 13.01
Tags: General court, likelihood of confusion, simba, toys, gambling,,
0 Comments    Post a comment
FRIDAY, 29 JANUARY 2016
Breaking news! You may be getting a trade mark renewal refund ...

On this very day our good friends at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) have published Communication 2/2016 of the President of the Office of 20 January 2016. This Communication concerns the calculation of the amount of renewal fees in view of the entry into force of Regulation 2015/2424.

In practice, this means that

“Community trade marks expiring on or after 23 March 2016 will be subject to the new renewal fees indicated in points A.11 to A.19 of Annex I EUTMR, even in the event that renewal was requested and paid for before the entry into force of the this Communication” .

Those trade mark owners who are subject to those conditions but who had already paid will be refunded any excess renewal fees.

Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 10.55
Tags: CTM, EUTM, renewals, refund,
0 Comments    Post a comment
FRIDAY, 29 JANUARY 2016
If you want to help GIPI, you'd better be nippy

Class 46 has learned that the survey for the 5th Taylor Wessing Global Intellectual Property Index ('GIPI')will be closing next Friday, 5 February.  This survey has attracted a lot of attention in previous years and is highly regarded.  However, a survey is only as good as the responses it attracts -- which is why we are posting this notice.

If you would like to participate, the link to the survey is here (in English), here (in French and here (in German).  The survey has been overhauled since its previous iteration and is very user friendly. It covers trade marks, designs, copyright, patents and data protection and can be done anonymously if preferred. 

A background to the GIPI reports is here and you can also enjoy a related interactive world IP map here.

Go for it!

Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 09.19
Tags: GIPI, Global Intellectual Property Index 2016,
0 Comments    Post a comment
THURSDAY, 28 JANUARY 2016
Etincelle can't register Alexander Wang for perfumes, cosmetics

Class 46 is grateful to Anthony Van der Planken and Thierry van Innis (Van Innis & Delarue) for drawing our attention to a hot-off-the-press decision of OHIM's Second Board of Appeal in Case R 3135/ 2014-2 Etincelle Paris v Alexander Wang.  

In this decision the Board examines the (in)validity of the trade mark application ‘Alexander Wang’ for perfumeries and cosmetics in Class 3: this application was not filed by the famous American fashion designer but by Etincelle Paris, whch Anthony and Thierry describe as "an obscure entity from the British Virgin Islands".

The real Alexander Wang filed a request for a declaration of invalidity, alleging Etincelle’s bad faith at the moment of filing the application within the meaning of Article 52(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation. Both the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal upheld the request. The Board essentially inferred bad faith from

(i) the fact that Alexander Wang was widely known in the European Union at the time of filing, and that, consequently, it may be presumed that Etincelle was aware of the use of this sign,

(ii) the fact that the name concerned is quite unique due to its multicultural combination and

(iii) the fact that Etincelle also filed other trade mark applications for names of contemporary well-known fashion designers, such as Pierre Hardy, Philippe Plein and Isabel Marant, both in Europe and in China.

This being so, Etincelle’s trade mark was declared invalid in its entirety.

Anthony and Thierry acted for Alexander Wang in this action.

Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 19.16
Tags: Community trade mark invalidity proceedings,
0 Comments    Post a comment