If the person making such a hearsay statement had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters, and the Hearing Officer decides that the circumstances in which the evidence is adduced as hearsay are such as to suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight, he or she may give the statement no weight at all.  

The Swiss trade mark authorities have, in their continued quest to make themselves the laughing stock of trade mark law, ruled that the word mark IPHONE is not protectable in Switzerland. The relevant consumer would understand the "I" as abbreviation for "Internet" or "information". As a simple letter, the "I" is not protectable unless it has acquired distinctiveness.

In connection with "PHONE", the "I" therefore signifies a telephone that has Internet and/or information technology related features. The sign was descriptive not only for telephones, but also for computers, mp3-players, and software, because all these goods could process sound and have Internet-related features.

To persons familiar with the Swiss practice, the decision comes as no surprise. Just last week, the Federal Administrative Court has denied protection for i-Option for printers and scanners, using essentially the same reasoning. Also unsurprising is that Apple failed with its arguments that it should be treated equally, as there are many trade marks that are composed according to the pattern "i + generic English term" on the Swiss register, among them IDOCUMENT, IPROJECT, IDIARY, IFAST and I-SIGHT. However, the practice has changed, and the IPO is not barred from changing its practice.

Note that Apple has not, so far, claimed acquired distinctiveness.

Decision of 24 November 2009 (in German; not final - an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court is possible. Statistically, the Supreme Court has not once in the last ten years overruled the lower instances when they refused protection for a word mark).

On 13 October 2009 the Danish Supreme Court rendered a decision concerning keyword advertising. After the question had been admitted to the Supreme Court by the Danish Board of Appeal Permission, the court refused to issue an injunction on the use of third party registered trade marks as adwords (in this case SKODA). Hanne Weywardt, partner in the Copenhagen office of MAQS Law Firm, reports that the appellant, HE-House A/S and HE-Biler, succeeded in having the High Court’s decision to issue an injunction overruled by the Supreme Court, which doubted whether the registration of a keyword was a “commercial use” of the trade mark belonging to Skandinavisk Motor Co. A/S (SMC).

The judges considered the meaning of Article 6 of the EU Trade Mark Directive unclear with regard to the use of third party trade marks as adwords – an issue which is currently pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Consequently the Court found that it was not shown to be likely that HE-House infringed SMC’s trade marks. Thus the conditions of the Danish Code of Civil Procedure section 642, no.1, were not met and the injunction previously affirmed by the High Court could not be upheld. 

Today the key figure in a case concerning the import of several tons of fake “Global” knives and a large quantity of parts to the famous PH-lamps was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The Court found that the 50-year old, along with three others, was guilty of organising the production at a Chinese factory, the importation to Denmark from China, and the attempt to sell off the illegal goods infringing the rights of Yoshida Metal Industry and Louis Poulsen Lighting A/S.  Hanne Weywardt, partner in the Copenhagen office of MAQS Law Firm, reports that today’s sentence is the most severe that Denmark has imposed for copyright infringement.

The quantity of the latest transport in 2005 was over nine tons and was impounded by Danish customs.

The infringer also had his profit of 6.4 million DKK confiscated.