The VAC in a judgment of 23 June 2009, case act signature VI SA/Wa 274/09, ruled that the application for the right of protection for a trade mark is made in bad faith, despite the knowledge or ignorance, resulting from an absence of diligence, about the existence of another's right or interest that is worth of protection, which can be threatened, and with the intention of harming these interests. The overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion as it concerns the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question must be based on the overall impression, taking account in particular, their distinctive and dominant components.

 This judgment is not yet final. The parties may file a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Volvo Trademark Holding AB prevails in its appeal against the OHIM's dismissal of its opposition against the registration of the figurative mark "solvo" (depicted above) in Classes 9, 39 and 42 of the Nice Agreement. Both OHIM and the Board of Appeal had dismissed the opposition because the trade marks VOLVO and "solvo" (fig.) were not similar.

The CFI - sorry, General Court - disagreed. The two trade marks were at least phonetically similar. The Board of Appeal was therefore required to carry out a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, which it failed to do. 

Volvo also prevailed with its second plea, claiming a violation of art. 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (protection of marks with a reputation). The Court notes that no likelihood of confusion is necessary to prevail under art. 8(5), a mere link between the younger mark and the mark with a reputation suffices. Since the Board of Appeal's incorrect assessment of lack of similarity between the two marks led it to conclude that no link was established, it misapplied art. 8(5).

Decision annuled.

According to the Finnish press, the city of Kuopio is binning its logo, which it launched only nine years ago. In the eyes of the locals the ill-starred logo bore resemblance to everything from a turnip to a male contraceptive. Also the slogan associated with the logo, “KUOPIO - PAREMPI NIIN” (KUOPIO – BETTER THAT WAY), was not the greatest success story.

With a view to obtaining a proverbial face lift the city of Kuopio has now organized a competitive bidding for the new logo. As reported in the local newspaper, Savon Sanomat, the new logo will be based on a more traditional element; Kuopio´s old coat of arms from 1823.

It has always been ICANN's intention to accredit several UDRP dispute resolution service providers to ensure competition and avoid the extraction of monopoly rents by dispute resolution service providers. It seems the race to the bottom is now officially open. 

The Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), known for its dispute resolution services for the TLD .eu, is since January 2009 also an ICANN-approved dispute resolution service provider for .com, .net .org and other generic TLDs. It proposes an expedited UDRP proceeding for just EUR 500 (approx. USD 750). That's about half the WIPO's fee of USD 1,500 for a proceeding involving up to five domain names. The fee is split 50:50 between the panelist and the CAC.

In order to qualify for an expedited hearing, the complainant must limit arguments to 2,000 words, and the respondent must not file a response. If he does, the additional fee for the "normal" proceeding must be paid if the complainant wants to continue the proceeding.

Details of the proposal can be found on ICANN's website here; comments are welcome until 11 December 2009. It is not entirely clear when the new Supplemental Rules will take effect.

Also rumoured to plan a fast-track procedure is WIPO; however, hard facts on the proposal are still hard to come by.

The number of domain disputes per registered domain names is falling, as domainnamewire notes. This could partially explain the competition on price (it sucks to be in a shrinking market).

That does not mean, however, that the total number of disputes is falling, as the following graph from WIPO shows (WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center is not the only dispute resolution service provider, but if past experience is an indicator, the trend for all providers is very similar). 2008 was a record year in numbers of UDRP cases filed with the WIPO. Seems like CAC wants a (larger) part of the action. All the better for consumers - in this case, trade mark proprietors.