Chanel victorious in interlocking logo battle
An interesting, and pro-fashion, decision from the General Court in T‑57/16, Chanel SAS v EUIPO - Li Jing Zhou & Golden Rose 999 (Ornament). It is not yet available in English, but Mr Google has once more lent us a hand in bringing you a summary.
Chanel attacked the validity of RCD 1689027-0001, which shows two interlocking S shapes and the indication of product reads "ornamentation", in Locarno Class 32 ("Graphic Symbols and Logos, Surface Patterns, Ornamentation"). The basis of the attack in this case was the prior publication of their own famous interlocking-C logo.
Read more: https://marques.org/class99/Default.asp?XID=BHA800
General Court consider a question of timing in smartwatch case
Case T 90/16, Thomas Murphy v EUIPO – Nike Innovate, 4 July 2017 (Electronic Watch Bracelet) marks the latest stage in a battle between a lone inventor and the mighty Nike. Having had the pleasure of meeting Mr Murphy, the applicant for invalidity of Nike’s design, I will try to keep this post as brief as possible and readers should be aware that his cause has my sympathy, though not my involvement.
The Nike design was registered in 2012 and, in August 2013, Mr Murphy filed to invalidate it. It was upheld at first instance (in Invalidity Decision ICD 9251), on appeal (Appeal Board Decision R0736/2014-3) and, four years on, before the GC. We wait with interest to see whether it will go further.
Read more: https://marques.org/class99/Default.asp?XID=BHA799
Find all the MARQUES social media channels, and sign up to follow them, here:
Issue 080
.gif)
Check out the recent posts on General Court design decisions on the Class 99 blog, as well as other news on 