|
| |
WEDNESDAY, 27 JANUARY 2010
New IP laws for Bosnia?
 On 31 December 2009 the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted seven draft laws in the field of intellectual property, proposed by the Institute for Intellectual Property of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
These include Draft Laws on Industrial Property, Trade Marks and on the Protection of Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin.
Bosnia currently has only one law on IP rights, the Law on Industrial Property, which entered into force on August 27, 2002. This law covers patents, trade marks, designs and geographical indications and designations of origin. The new proposal aims to make separate laws for each IP area, as part of Bosnia’s accession into the European Union and the harmonization of its legislation with the European Union.
The new draft laws are expected to be submitted to the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina for further consideration in the near future.
Source: IP Newsletter of PETOSEVIC, from whom further information may be obtained
here
Posted by: Jeremy Phillips @ 22.14
Tags: Bosnia-Herzegovina, |
|
|
|
| |
WEDNESDAY, 27 JANUARY 2010
Onel vs Omel - OHIM strikes back and BOIP publishes English and French translations
 OHIM published an official statement on the Onel vs Omel decision on its website today (have a look here): 'A recent ruling by the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) has attracted controversy in IP discussion groups on the web. The Opposition Decision of 15 January 2010 (Leno Merken B.V./Hagelkruis Beheer bv) states that use of a CTM in one EU Member State (in the specific case, the Netherlands) is insufficient to constitute genuine use in the EU. This contradicts the Joint Statement of the Commission and the Council, which establishes that use of a Community trade mark within the meaning of Article 15 of the CTM Regulation in one EU Member State is sufficient to constitute genuine use in the EU.'
Pending any possible appeal of the BOIP Decision, OHIM - applying the principle of the unitary character of the CTM - continues to consider that boundaries of Member States should not play a part in assessing “genuine use” within the EU Single Market, as recently outlined in its contrbution to the European Commission study on the overall functioning of the trade mark system in Europe.'
In the meantime BOIP published non-official translations in English and French of the decision at its website (have a look here).
Time for some shuttle diplomacy?
Posted by: Gino Van Roeyen @ 15.42
Tags: CTM, Benelux, normal use, |
|
|
|
| |
MONDAY, 25 JANUARY 2010
Onel vs Omel: Not Normal - The BOIP's Decision in English Translation
 A bit of 'shock and awe' might run trough the European Trade Mark Communities. The Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) rules the waves (see my last Saturdays' post) by explicitly urging owners of CTM's to use their trade marks not only in one country, but throughout the EU. The saying in the Netherlands might be 'één is geen' (which could be freely translated as having one is the same as having none), but the question of course is, is that a valid approach in view of the Joint Statements in which it is held that use of a CTM in only one Member State can be sufficient to keep a CTM 'alive'. See for further first comments and discussion IPKat and Boek9. In the meantime a non-official English translation of the decision can be found here.
Posted by: Gino Van Roeyen @ 13.49
Tags: CTM, Benelux, Normal Use, |
|
|
|
| |
MONDAY, 25 JANUARY 2010
Spain – About Trade Mark Law, the Guggenheim museum and “tapas” (not kidding).
This blogger has read the Spanish newspaper El Economista and found a curious case to report from Spain concerning the famous Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao.
The Spanish Supreme Court (Contentious-administrative Chamber) has recently dismissed the appeal filed by the owner of the “Guggenheim” Spanish trademarks against the registration of the Spanish trade mark for “El huevo frito Indautxu El Huevonheim” for class 43 (bar services, amongst others).
The challenged trade mark deserves some explanation – it reads “El huevo frito” (fried egg) plus “Indautxu” (the name of the district where the Guggenheim Bilbao museum in Bilbao is located – and the applicant is seated there, too) plus “El Huevonheim” ( “The eggnheim”?). So translated the challenged mark would read (in my free adaptation) “The Eggnheim - the fried egg from Indautxu”, being the name of a bar.
A gastronomical note: one of the Spanish culinaire glories are the “tapas”. One of the places to go in the quest for the best “tapas” is the Basque Country (Euskadi - "tapas" are called there "pintxos"), being Bilbao its most populous city and the seat of a remarkable Guggenheim museum. And certainly a good place to go “tapas” (this blogger can tell). Below an example - is this the "Eggnheim" tapa?
Having a branded bar so called in the museum surrounding seemed not to please the management of the world-renown museum. This is probably the application for registration of “El huevo frito Indautxu El Huevonheim” was (unsuccessfully) challenged by the foundation managing the Guggenheim museum not only before the Spanish Trade Marks and Patents Office, but also before the Courts of Justice.
According to the press report, the Supreme Court found that “El huevo frito Indautxu El Huevonheim” mark differed significantly from the prior “Guggenheim” marks. The mere coincidence in the “nheim” suffix in of the terms of the later trade mark (Guggenheim vs Huevonheim) was not enough to generate a “reasonable and objective” risk of confusion.
Posted by: Ignacio Marques @ 09.24
Tags: Spain, relative grounds for refusal., |
|
|
|
| |
SUNDAY, 24 JANUARY 2010
Your comments are welcome!
 Since the Class 46 European trade mark law weblog moved to its new home on the MARQUES website, it has gone from strength to strength. Readership has increased and many readers have commented on the speed and relevance of its news and analysis. There's only one thing missing: your comments!
You can post your comments by clicking the "Post a comment" link at the bottom of each item on the weblog. The more comments the blog receives, the more its readers are enriched by other readers' ideas and experiences. So don't by shy ...!
Posted by: Jeremy Phillips @ 21.05
Tags: Class 46, comments, |
|
|
|
| |
SATURDAY, 23 JANUARY 2010
Onel vs Omel: not Normal?
Excitement in The Netherlands: in opposition proceedings between Leno Merken B.V. - owner of the CTM 'Onel' - acting against Hagelkruis Beheer B.V. - that had applied for registration of the trade mark 'Omel' in the Benelux - the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) decided on January 15, 2010 that normal use of a CTM in one Member State is not normal use in the EU. BOIP considers that a trade mark right is a monopoly. To justify such monopoly and to fulfill its essential function, the trade mark should be used. A monopoly that goes (much) farther than the territory within which the trade mark is used, is definitely an exception to the principle of free circulation of goods and the rendering of services within the internal market. That is clearly not what the legislator has intended. It appears very unjust that a company that uses its trade mark only in a local market, could prevent the opportunities for other companies for the entire territory of the internal market. It even appears even more unjust if a company that is only active locally (this is the case for the greater part of the Small and Medium Market companies, which form a serious part of the European economy), could be hampered in the development of its activities by and should defend itself against another company that is also only active locally and has no economic activity at all in an area that is not even in the slightest way nearby, so that there can be no likelihood of confusion at the public relevant for both companies relevant public. Therefore the BOIP - which considered that both parties apparently agreed that the trade mark Onel was only used in the Netherlands - comes to the conclusion that there was no normal use of Onel. It took into account too that the services for which the trade mark was registered (class 35, 41 and 45) are according to their nature fit for a broad public in the entire internal market. BOIP comes to the far reaching conclusion that the idea laid down in the Joint Statements that normal use in one country of the EC should be regarded as normal use per se is incorrect. What's that smell? That of an appeal?
Posted by: Gino Van Roeyen @ 09.25
Tags: normal use, CTM, Benelux, |
|
|
|
| |
FRIDAY, 22 JANUARY 2010
Greece - 512.000 packs of counterfeit cigarettes seized at the Piraeus Customs
The Greek newspaper Naftemporiki reports some good results for YPEE (the special unit of the Greek Ministry of Finance, charged with tackling economic crime) and the Piraeus Customs Authorities. According to the relevant news piece, 512.000 packs of counterfeit cigarettes were seized just this Wedensday January 20, following a joint raid by YPEE and Piraeus Customs officials. The shipment had come from Dubai and was declared as "goods for domestic use". Naftemporiki reports that, only a day before the seizure, the shipment's loader had requested form the shipping company to return the shipment back to Dubai, but his e-mail proved too little too late. This is an interesting way to deter smokers! Unfortunately, there are no data on the lucky and effective trade mark owner.
Posted by: Nikos Prentoulis @ 13.51
Tags: seizure, counterfeit cigarettes, Piraeus, YPEE, Piraeus Customs, |
|
|
|
|
|
0 comments: 
Subscribe in a reader