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.
 
  MONDAY, 23 MAY 2011
Curia gives ONEL a number
The much-publicised reference for a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the ONEL/OMEL dispute has now been given a case number by the Court: it's now Case C-149/11 Leno Merken v Hagelkruis Beheer B.V. To refresh readers' memories, this case raises the following questions: 

1. Must Article 15(1) of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark be interpreted as meaning that use of a Community trade mark within the borders of a single Member State is sufficient to constitute genuine use of that trade mark, provided that, had it been a national trade mark, such use would have been regarded as genuine use in that Member State (cf. Joint Statement No 10 regarding Article 15 of Council Regulation 40/94 of and the Opposition Guidelines of the OHM)? 

2. If question 1 is answered in the negative, can the use of a Community trade mark within a single Member State as described above never be regarded as genuine use in the Community as referred to in Article 15(1) of Regulation 207/2009? If the use of a Community trade mark within a single Member State can never be regarded as genuine use in the Community, what requirements must be laid down - in addition to the other factors - in respect of the territorial scope of the use of a Community trade mark when assessing genuine use in the Community? 

3. Alternatively - contrary to what has been stated above - must Article 15 of the Regulation on the Community trade mark be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of genuine use in the Community should be done wholly in the abstract, without reference to the borders of the territory of the individual Member States (and that, for example, market share (product markets/geographic markets) should be taken as the point of reference)?

Posted by: Jeremy Phillips @ 17.20 
Tags: ECJ reference, genuine use,

 

   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
3257 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
+ 2012
- 2011
     + December (24)
     + November (41)
     + October (42)
     + September (51)
     + August (27)
     + July (39)
     + June (37)
     - May (47)
"Unstoppable": new ICANN gTLD draft guide released
Pepekillo v. Pepe Jeans
Poland: Churches struggle
Emram v OHIM: Guilty against Gucci
OHIM Boards of Appeal: proof of reputation and evidence submitted out of time
Polo player : Santa Maria v. Ralph Lauren
Cigars: Cuba Cohiba v. Kansas Kiowa
Germany: When priority does not matter anymore ...
May the Force be with you...trademark owners
McKinley v. McKenzie
Battle of the March
Diagnostic: YGEIA is not a valid trademark
Curia gives ONEL a number
Swiss Supreme Court: ZACAPA is a geographical indication for rum in the sense of art. 23 TRIPS
Poland: Tabasco's troubles
Switzerland: ViaGuara Vodka infringes on famous VIAGRA brand
OHIM- more on opposition procedure rules
TXAKOLI: wines, trials and tribulations
A case of thin v. slim (Flaco v. Delgado) and cattle
Shortly -A new TM law for Greece
French ski: competition in trademark court
Portugal: CORIÉGUS v. COPEGUS
Poland: distinctive designations
Latest World Trademark Review published
General Court: Olymp v. Olimpo
New online service provides OHIM certified copies
Finland - Decision on parallel import of pharmaceuticals
Overview of 1800 decisions of the OHIM's Boards of Appeal (2010)
Won't you have some more.. community trademark law
Battle over wine and Stone bulls
Smart Technologies - CTM filing not made simple
Latest GI registrations published
Sale of counterfeit goods over the internet fought by MoU
OHIM reorganises "to support overall goals"
General Court clarifies 'agent-principal' relationship in the meaning of Article 8(3)
Did you say polo-polo?
Italian Supreme Court decision reinforces protection of design products.
Switzerland: Supreme Court reinforces strict practice regarding descriptiveness
Germany: Die grüne Post ./. Die grüne Post (with device)
News from OHIM: TMview, classification and annual report for 2010
MARQUES comes to Buenos Aires
'Honest concurrent use': Ireland suspends its current practice
Latest ETMR now published
Cost-effective dinner in Toronto!
Labastida: from Door to Castle- there can only be likelihood of confusion
Bosnians take firm grip on fake massagers
     + April (35)
     + March (48)
     + February (32)
     + January (43)
+ 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