|
Boehringer Ingelheim v
Swingward (and other related actions)
Court of Appeal, England and Wales,
21 February 2008:
Following two references to the European Court of
Justice for preliminary rulings, the Court of Appeal gives its own
decision-subject to any further ECJ ruling-on the legal status of repackaged
and debranded parallel-imported pharmaceutical products.
Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport v Coop
Supreme Court, Denmark, 20 November
2007:
Device marks which had a low distinctive capacity, such as the
claimant's split-stripe mark, had only a limited degree of protection and
could not be used to prevent their use as decoration.
Pirelli & C. SpA's application; opposition of Zero International Holding
GmbH & Co Kommanditgesellschaft
Irish Patents Office, 22 June 2007:
The
marks P ZERO and ZERO were so closeto one another that the average consumer
was in real danger of concluding that goods bearing them would originate
from the same source.
Usinor SA v OHIM, Corus UK Ltd Intervening
Court of First Instance of the
European Communities, 14 February 2008: Case T-189/05
GALVALLOY and
GALVALLIA found to be confusingly similar, even though the goods in respect
of each mark (protected steel strips, in France) were sold only to a small,
expert group of consumers and even though the earlier mark was of low
distinctiveness.
Bostik Ltd v Henkel KGAA
Appointed Person, England and Wales, 3 September
2007:
There was no reason why HYPER GLUE and HYPAGLUE should not be
registered as trade marks for products in Classes 1 and 16, since there was
no evidence before the examiner that "hyper glue" meant "super glue".
GA Modefine SA v Guccio Gucci SpA
Metropolitan Board of Appeal, Hungary, 3
January 2008:
Armani's "GA" device mark was considered confusingly similar
to Gucci's earlier "GG" device mark and the fact that the former had been
registered in other countries was irrelevant to the question whether, on the
application of Hungarian trade mark law, the relevant consumer would be
confused.
Ekaterinburg Customs' application
Commercial Court, Ekaterinaburg, Russian
Federation, 3 December 2007:
An application by the Customs authorities for
an administrative action against an allegedly infringing parallel importer
will fail in the absence of evidence that the goods had been imported
illegally.
Procter & Gamble's application
Federal Administrative Court,
Switzerland:
A device mark consisting principally of the words DELIGHT
AROMAS was not descriptive to the relevant consumer, since the word
"delight" would not be understood by the average Swiss consumer as meaning
délice.
Jobteamdanmark A/S v Trade Marks Board of Appeal
Commercial Court,
Denmark, 30 January 2008:
The well-known nature of the Danish Olympic
Committee's TEAM DANMARK trade mark was such that it was entitled to the
protection against the applicant's JOBTEAMDANMARK trade mark, even though
the applicant was a well-established provider of employment and recruitment
services under that name.
Siemens' application
Patent Court of Appeal, Sweden:
The word SICURITY
was lacking in distinctive character in Sweden, in respect of the goods and
services for which registration of that mark was sought. It could not be
divided into "SI" for Siemens and "-CURITY", being an allusive but
meaningless suffix. |
