Login | Join Us | Contact Us | Search
 
 
 

 
 
  About Us   Press         Conferences   Members   Teams       Publications   Class 46     Position Papers   FAQs        Links     

Class 46 - for your European trade mark news
 

Now in its sixth year, Class 46  is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice.  This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
 
  TUESDAY, 19 JUNE 2012
Stop press: IP Translator decision

The CJEU has just issued its long-awaited decision in IP Translator (Case C-307/10) available here or at http://bit.ly/NMno0I

The operative part reads as follows:

Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the goods and services for which the protection of the trade mark is sought to be identified by the applicant with sufficient clarity and precision to enable the competent authorities and economic operators, on that basis alone, to determine the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark.

Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the use of the general indications of the class headings of the Classification referred to in Article 1 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, concluded at the Nice Diplomatic Conference on 15 June 1957, last revised in Geneva on 13 May 1977 and amended on 28 September 1979, to identify the goods and services for which the protection of the trade mark is sought, provided that such identification is sufficiently clear and precise.

An applicant for a national trade mark who uses all the general indications of a particular class heading of the Classification referred to in Article 1 of the Nice Agreement to identify the goods or services for which the protection of the trade mark is sought must specify whether its application for registration is intended to cover all the goods or services included in the alphabetical list of that class or only some of those goods or services. If the application concerns only some of those goods or services, the applicant is required to specify which of the goods or services in that class are intended to be covered.

This will be exhaustively analysed but in particular the new question it raises - how does one "specify" in an application that it is intended to cover all goods or services in that class? 

Posted by: Niamh Hall @ 16.09 
Tags:

 

   0 comments:    Post a comment

 
 

Search Class 46
Search:

Who we all are...

Birgit Clark
Edith Van den Eede
Fidel Porcuna
Frédéric Glaize
Gino Van Roeyen
Jeremy Phillips
Kathrin Vowinckel
Laetitia Lagarde
Mark Schweizer
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Pedro Malaquias
Robert Börner
Tomasz Rychlicki

Receive Class 46 by email
3295 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog by email circular. Why don't you?

To subscribe, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button.
email:

Receive Class 46 by RSS Feed
515 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog via an RSS reader.

Subscribe in a reader


The Class 46 archive


- 2013
     - May (22)
General Court: it's a hard dog's life for K-9
More European GI specifications amended
All smiles in Sofia as e-filing approaches
The unitary character of the CTM: your chance to comment
Moules de bouchot protected by poles -- and by law
General Court: Alicante wine enforces its right against Venetian producer in Marina battle
Houplain, Logobook: for the trade mark lawyer who has it all?
General Court: know your chicken
If you enjoyed our first seminar on EU TM reform, you'll love the sequel
Switzerland: Intel Inside (fig.) vs. GALDAT INSIDE - a Solomonic decision?
BGH refuses immoral "READY TO F*CK" trade mark
Porc du Sud-Ouest tops latest GI list
Portugal: dispute over liquors - the second chapter
New magazine launched for trade mark lawyers
General Court: Endurace v. Endurance (fig.)
General Court gets ready for summer: SLIM BELLY
After ONEL, OHIM amends its practice on use in the EU
IP TRANSLATOR: CIPA appeal allowed
Spain: Likelihood of confusion as an issue of fact? A tale of a dissenting opinion
Coexistence agreements: two MARQUES workshops go live
IP TRANSLATOR: will there be a sequel?
OHIM and national office interpretation of IP Translator published
     + April (33)
     + March (38)
     + February (27)
     + January (31)
+ 2012
+ 2011
+ 2010
+ 2009
+ 2008
+ 2007

 
 

Terms of Use: The material included on this site is provided for information purposes only, and we make no representations or warranties as to its accuracy. It does not represent legal advice. Before relying on this material, you should take care to verify its accuracy, taking professional advice as appropriate. [Please click here for the full Terms and Conditions of Use]

Copyright ©2008-2013 MARQUES Ltd and Individual Contributors