The self-governing body of the Swiss advertising industry held in a recently published decision that the above depicted advertisment for butter contravenes fair advertising standards.

The tag-line reads "Butter. The rest is'nt natural". The advertiser argued that the ad is directed at margarine, which they consider, unlike butter, to be an "unnatural" product. Subjectively, that may be true, but the Lauterkeitskommission correctly pointed out that the ad said "the rest" was not natural, and olive oil, for example, was a wholly natural substitute for butter (and, according to some, even healthier...). The ad may not be shown in Switzerland any longer.

"Even if a registered Traditional Specialty Guaranteed was, in principle, capable of constituting an earlier right under s.5(4) Trade Marks Act 1994, the opponent did not have an earlier right. Such a mark would only be protected from the date of publication, which would occur after registration, and this had not yet taken place. It was in any event unlikely that live pigs were a similar agricultural product to pork products, such as to fall within the scope of protection of the proposed Traditional Speciality Guaranteed mark".

"This reform results from the current social climate, in which the courts are reluctant to incarcerate individuals (for the most part, immigrants) and to issue condemnatory rulings in such cases. It is hoped that the reduction in criminal sanctions will overcome the reluctance of the courts and that they will deliver more condemnatory rulings in cases involving the infringement of IP rights".

The Spanish Patents and Trade Marks Office reports that in 2009 the Spanish police forces seized more than 5 million counterfeited items amounting more than Euro.- 438 millions. Surprisingly enough, despite the value of seized items has increased in 13% compared with 2008, the total number of effectively seized goods decreased in 30,7% compared the total figure in 2008.

Spanish Police made a total of 4,584 interventions resulting 5,131 detainees. Madrid, Andalucía, Catalonia and Comunidad Valenciana have been the places of more intense police activity. 51,3% of interventions were made in manufacturing premises or warehouses, 25,8% in retail shops, 17,7% in customs and 2,4% in illegal street sale.

Leather goods, fashion complements and (specially watches) are the most affected fields of industry.

The First Board of Appeal, in a

The Board held that that doubts concerning the trustworthiness of the declaration may always exist but must be based on objective elements, such as the existence of contradictions in the declaration or of manifestly implausible statements or suspiciously vague or reticent wording.

The Board considered that the information in the declaration appears reasonable and plausible. He signer explains that the mark was first used in 1997 in Germany and has been continually used since. He states that the goods are mattresses and frames. He explains why the LEGRA mark is sometimes used in combination with ROWA. He explains that the mark is not advertised as a consumer product to the public because the beds are upmarket and are the subject of selective distribution. He comments in detail on the rest of the evidence that has been submitted. He gives statistics as regards the turnover for selling LEGRA goods and advertising them, during the relevant period, year by year. The Board could not find anything in the declaration that might generate doubts about its trustworthiness.

The Board does not share the Opposition Division's position that declarations which contain sales figures should be proved with invoices because the declaration, provided it complies with the formal and substantial requirements listed above, is already proof.

Google's "find similar images" feature, which is part of Google's image search since October 2009, is a - not perfect, but nonetheless sometimes useful - way to find images that may be infringing on your trade mark.

Selecting the "find similar images" option on the image on the right - the original World Wide Fund For Nature logo - will find, within the first 5 pages of results, the following spoofs:

I am not saying that WWF should or could take action against any of these, but sometimes it is interesting to see who is using imagery that is similar to your trade mark, and Google Images provides an easy way to at least get some idea of who is getting a bit too close for comfort (Microsoft's Bing search engine also provides a "find similar images" option, but I get the impression that it is based more on the text associated with the image than the content of the image).

Source: "Injunction against hypermarket chain welcomed by mark owners", article in World Trademark Review, 20 July 2010, by Eleni Lappa, Drakopoulos Law Firm, Athens.

Each of the three countries has maintained its own trade mark registry, but that of Russia has attracted the registration of far more trade marks than the other two countries. Now that trade barriers are being dismantled, goods bearing trade marks which are registered in Russia, but not in Belarus or Kazakhstan, might freely enter union territory from neighbouring territories, such as Poland in the west and China in the east.  As the author observes: 

"Such goods may be counterfeit or may simply be third-party merchandise bearing a trade mark which is identical or similar to a mark registered in Russia. Until now, Customs prevented such goods from entering Russia. However, not all goods were held as a matter of course - the authorities detained goods only if they bore a trade mark that was identical or confusingly similar to one recorded in the Customs Register of Objects of Intellectual Property. Trade mark owners have complained - with good reason - about the long list of registration requirements, but the system has proved effective, as shown by the ever-growing number of trade marks (and, recently, some copyrights) appearing in the register".

It appears to be one of these never-ending stories: the European courts and the bunnies.  This time it was for the German Bundesgerichtshof to decide… yet again, one should add since this is not the first time the Bundesgerichtshof had to consider these funny little bunnies. 

Please click here to read one of our very early posts from December 2007 on this very case dating back to the early days of Class 46. To read about the ECJ's famous bad faith/bunny decision, please click here.  To read about the Austrian bunny saga involving the same parties, please click here.

So here we go again: the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) on 15 July 2010 had to again decide whether a registered trade mark for the three dimensional "Lindt-Goldhase" (Lind Gold Bunny), covering chocolate goods, conveys the right to prevent the distribution of similar chocolate bunnies (by a competitor).

Please find a summary and translation of the Bundesgerichtshof's press release of 16 July 2010 below.  The full decision is not yet available.

The claimant's trade mark was registered on 6 July 2001 and consists of a sitting chocolate bunny that is covered by gold foil and which wears a red ribbon collar with a bell.  The words "Lindt GOLDHASE" (Lindt GOLD RABBIT) are also printed on the bunny.  The chocolate manufacturer Lindt & Sprüngli's objects to the production of the chocolate bunnies by its competitor Riegelein. Riegelein also produces chocolate bunnies which Lindt believes to be confusingly similar to its own bunnies.  Lindt's claim for injunctive relief also includes a request for information and damages.

In the first appeal proceedings in October 2006 (ZR 37/04, BGHZ 169, 295), the Bundesgerichts had already overturned a negative decision by the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt a. M. (on appeal from a Landgericht Frankfurt decision, case 2/3 O 443/02 of 19 November 2002), and referred the bunny case back to the Frankfurt court for a new decision. The Frankfurt court subsequently (case 6 U 10/03 of 8 November 2007) again denied a likelihood of confusion between both chocolate bunnies since the design of both bunnies was not similar enough.

In the second appeal proceedings to the Bundesgerichtshof, the Federal Court now also overturned this second decision by the Higher Regional court and referred the case back once more.  Why? It appeas some evidence had been misplaced.  At the proceedings at the Frankfurt court a sample Riegelein bunny had been presented.  Since the Higher Regional Court had paid detailed attention to the choice of colours used on the bunnies, the claimant Lindt had decided to amend its claim to relate to the chocolate bunny as presented at the oral proceedings.  Unfortunately, the Higher Regional Court had based its decision, in which it had denied a likelihood of confusion between both bunnies, on the foil as used on the Riegelein bunny as presented at the court hearing.  Sadly though, it appears that the Riegelein bunny, which should have been kept with the case files, and which had been of a "particular shade of bronze" that, according to the factual findings of the Higher Regional Court, was "clearly distinguishable from the shiny gold coloured foil" used on the Lindt bunnies, had been lost.  Consequently, the Bundesgerichtshof did not find itself in a position to verify these findings since the original Riegelein bunny, which had been handed over to the Higher Regional during the oral proceedings was no longer included in the actual case files that had been sent to the Bundesgerichtshof.  An investigation at the Higher Regional Court did not reveal anything conclusive. To add yet another twist to this story, the press release goes on and tells us that both parties, (Lindt's and Riegelein's lawyers that is), could not agree whether a new Riegelein bunny, which had been introduced at the Bundesgerichtshof's hearing, showed colours that were identical to the colours of the lost bunny the Higher Regional Court had examined earlier.

However, the press release goes on the emphasise that this was not the only reason that led the Bundesgerichtshof to overturn the Higher Regional Court's second appeal decision.

In view of the Bundesgerichtshof a likelihood of confusion between both bunnies cannot not be denied based on the Higher Regional court's reasoning: the Bundesgerichtshof decided that the Higher Regional Court had not correctly determined the overall impression conveyed by each bunny (shape and colour of the bunny and further composite elements such as the red ribbon with bell and the painted face). Furthermore, in view of the Bundesgerichtshof the Higher Regional court had also not assessed the results of a survey correctly. This survey had erroneously only been referring to a sitting Lindt bunny that did not include any facial paint elements and that had not shown any printed letters on the bunny.  When asked as to the trade origin of the bunny, a majority of the persons asked in the survey had answered: Lindt & Sprüngli. The Higher Regional court had hence concluded that the Lindt bunny's heightened degree of distinctiveness was based on its shape and colour.  In light of this background, the Bundesgerichtshof objected that the Higher Regional court had not properly justified its decision; moreover, the differing design features of both bunnies were determinative importance.

Class 46:  the case will now again and for the third time have to be considered by the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt.  Bearing in mind that this is already an appeal from the Landergericht Frankfurt (original decision from 2002), we can only hope that both sides will have all their bunny evidence in place and retain an identical sample for their own files, so that a final decision can be handed down some time soon.

Bundesgerichtshof, decision I ZR 57/08 of 15 July 2010. The court's press release of 16 July 2010 can be found here (in German). The full decision will eventually be posted here.

To read an amusing article on this case from FR-Online, please click here.

Aldi, the large German discount retail chain, is advertising that it is "Baking bread the whole day for you" and that it has "Fresh [bread] from morning 'til evening". The Association of German Bakers (Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks) has taken offence and is suing Aldi for false advertising: basically the bakers are saying that Aldi is not baking bread - it is merely re-heating pre-baked bread. So the Landgericht Duisburg will now be in the not very enviable position of deciding when heating turns into baking - legally speaking...

Press article (Spiegel Online) here.

Commission Regulation 622/2010 of 15 July 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pesca di Leonforte (PGI)).  The item in question is a peach, for which this rather lovely logo has been designated.

Commission Regulation 623/2010 of 15 July 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Farro di Monteleone di Spoleto (PDO)). This name protects an emmer wheat from the Monteleone region.

Commission Regulation 624/2010 of 15 July 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Melanzana Rossa di Rotonda (PDO)).  The product, an aubergine (egg plant) which strongly resembles a tomato, originated from Africa.

It is not uncommon that trade mark owners vary the representation of their registered mixed marks in trade but, what are the acceptable limits to that?

A recent Judgment of the Spanish CTM Court no. 1 tackles this issue. In that specific case, the respondent based its defence (amongst other arguments) in the fact that the claimant's mixed marks were not used in trade "as registered", as it used in trade another chromatic variation different to the one it registered.

The CTM as stake (no. 001823608) had this specific appearance:

The Court ruled that in that specific case, the "strength" (literal) of the claimant's mixed mark resided in its word element, that was "nuclear" to its distintinctive aptitude. The defence based on the lack of use was therefore dismissed as the claimant met its burden of proof when it provided documents that demonstrated that the word element of the mark ("Areas" was used in a "constant and real" way by the claimant.

The Council of the European Union announced the launching of e-Justice, a new web portal devoted to legal information. This web site includes for instance links to European countries jurisprudence databases, companies registers and other resources that IP professionals can take advantage of in their daily work.

From the press release:

European e-Justice internet portal offers quick answers to citizens’ legal questions

(...)
The web site benefits citizens, businesses, lawyers and judges with cross-border legal questions and boosts mutual understanding of different legal systems by contributing to the creation of a single area of justice. With more than 12,000 pages of content, the first version provides information and links on laws and practices in all Member States. For example, the portal offers information on legal aid, judicial training, and videoconferencing, as well as links to legal databases, online insolvency and land registers.

(...)

Lawyers, notaries and judges can have access to legal databases, contact colleagues through judicial  networks and find information on judicial training.
They also find information on arranging cross-border videoconferences;

(...)

Work is already underway to ensure that by 2013 there will be a tool allowing citizens to narrow their searches for lawyers. For example, the portal will allow a citizen to look for a German-speaking lawyer who specialises in family or divorce law in Hungary.

Homepage of the e-Justice Portal: https://e-justice.europa.eu

Paul, the psychic octopus, who was (allegedly...) born in England but resides in a German zoo, became a global sensation when he correctly predicted the outcome of all Germany games in the recent football World Cup as well as the result of the World Cup final.  Now a bidding war appears to have started and a Spanish zoo has already sent a negotiator to effect Paul's transfer from Germany to Spain.

Now, how long would it take for the first Paul trade marks to appear?  You got it, it did not take very long.  Please see the first offerings below taken from the OHIM and German trade mark registers respectively. 

Polpo is the Italian word for octopus by the way, most likely inspired by the latest rumours that Paul is not English born but actually from Italy. Das Orakel is German for the oracle...  Why do I have to think of polar bear Knut all of a sudden? 

Some light reading on a Tuesday afternoon with your 5 o'clock tea:

Being a "foreigner" myself, I found this quite an amusing read.  Please click here to read "10 great British brands no longer 'British'".

On 8 June 2010, the Cologne Court upheld the preliminary injunction granted inaudita altera parte on 26 January 2010 against the German Fuchs Gewürze Group, preventing the latter producer of seasoning products from marketing seasonings and cheese mixes under the name ‘Parmetta’.

Background

The case concerns the Parmigiano Reggiano PDO, registered in 1996 under Regulation No 2081/92 (now Regulation No 510/06) on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.

The defendant marketed a seasoning – consisting of 54 percent grated hard cheese, 17 percent cheese preparations and 29 percent spices – under the denomination ‘PARMETTA’, distributed under the trade mark ‘FUCHS’. The seasoning packaging showed the image of a hard cheese.

Decision

In its ruling, referring to the case law in Gorgonzola (Case C-87/97) and Parmesan II (C-132/05), the Court explicitly recognized that use of the term ‘PARMETTA’ for a seasoning containing cheese, which therefore has to be deemed as a product comparable to cheese, clearly evokes the PDO ‘PARMIGIANO REGGIANO’, irrespective of the existence of a risk of confusion which is not a necessary condition for protection of names registered as a PDO.

According to the Court the suffix –ETTA was not sufficient to exclude evocation; on the contrary, due to its Italian sound, it even strengthened a link with the Italian territory. In addition, the image of a hard cheese (all too similar to Parmigiano Reggiano) as well as the suggestion on the packaging to use the seasoning on pizza and pasta, further enhanced this link.

The Court dismissed all of the defendant’s arguments, according to which there was no evocation at all and that at the most the term PARMETTA evoked PARMESAN which, on its turn, evoked “PARMIGIANO REGGIANO”.

In conclusion, the Court agreed with the Parmigiano Reggiano Cheese Consortium that the use of the name ‘Parmetta' constituted violation of Article 13 (1)(b) PDO/PGI Regulation (EC) No 510/06 by evoking the Protected Designation of Origin Parmigiano Reggiano.

In addition, the Court ordered Fuchs to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Fuchs’ lawyers have informed the Consortium of the defendant’s decision not to lodge any further appeal against the decision.

On 8 June 2010, the Cologne Court upheld the preliminary injunction granted inaudita altera parte on 26 January 2010 against the German Fuchs Gewürze Group, preventing the latter producer of seasoning products from marketing seasonings and cheese mixes under the name ‘Parmetta’.

Background

The case concerns the Parmigiano Reggiano PDO, registered in 1996 under Regulation No 2081/92 (now Regulation No 510/06) on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.

The defendant marketed a seasoning – consisting of 54 percent grated hard cheese, 17 percent cheese preparations and 29 percent spices – under the denomination ‘PARMETTA’, distributed under the trade mark ‘FUCHS’. The seasoning packaging showed the image of a hard cheese.

Decision

In its ruling, referring to the case law in Gorgonzola (Case C-87/97) and Parmesan II (C-132/05), the Court explicitly recognized that use of the term ‘PARMETTA’ for a seasoning containing cheese, which therefore has to be deemed as a product comparable to cheese, clearly evokes the PDO ‘PARMIGIANO REGGIANO’, irrespective of the existence of a risk of confusion which is not a necessary condition for protection of names registered as a PDO.

According to the Court the suffix –ETTA was not sufficient to exclude evocation; on the contrary, due to its Italian sound, it even strengthened a link with the Italian territory. In addition, the image of a hard cheese (all too similar to Parmigiano Reggiano) as well as the suggestion on the packaging to use the seasoning on pizza and pasta, further enhanced this link.

The Court dismissed all of the defendant’s arguments, according to which there was no evocation at all and that at the most the term PARMETTA evoked PARMESAN which, on its turn, evoked “PARMIGIANO REGGIANO”.

In conclusion, the Court agreed with the Parmigiano Reggiano Cheese Consortium that the use of the name ‘Parmetta' constituted violation of Article 13 (1)(b) PDO/PGI Regulation (EC) No 510/06 by evoking the Protected Designation of Origin Parmigiano Reggiano.

In addition, the Court ordered Fuchs to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Fuchs’ lawyers have informed the Consortium of the defendant’s decision not to lodge any further appeal against the decision.

* Commission Regulation 611/2010 of 12 July 2010 approving minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Basilico Genovese (PDO)).  The amendments covering this delicious basil relate to the packaging of display of the product in question and to the use of the product logo (right), the EU PDO logo and the producer's own signs.

* Commission Regulation 612/2010 of 12 July 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fasola korczyńska (PGI)). Fasola korczyńska is the dried seed of a Polish dwarf bean.  

* Commission Regulation 613/2010 of 12 July 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Miód kurpiowski (PGI)). Miód kurpiowski is a nectar honey, with the possible inclusion of some honeydew. 

See also "Poland: reclaim the windows – the saga continues".

Legal context: the concept that trade mark rights cannot be used to partition the single market is a key concept of European Trade Mark Law. There are obviously exceptions to this rule, most notably that a trade mark owner can object to the free movement of branded goods that it has put on the market, if the physical condition of the branded products have been altered or impaired in some way. However, a new exception has developed over time, in that the condition of a branded product not only covers the ‘physical’ condition of the products, but also the ‘image’ surrounding the product deriving directly from the brand itself. The case at hand is in the latest in line of such decisions, but introduces new concepts such as ‘the aura of luxury’ associated with high end branded products. However, the decision has been worded in such a way that it impacts not only on luxury products, but all branded products in our contention.

Key points: The decision introduces the concept of the ‘aura of luxury’ associated with high end branded products and that this aura can be damaged if the product is marketed in distribution channels not deemed appropriate for the brand image of the product. However, all brands have an image of some kind which can be damaged if the brand is re-marketed in an inappropriate way and thus by definition all brand owners could find some solace in this decision helping them to control the re-marketing of their products considerably.

Practical significance: the hand of all brand owners has been significantly strengthened by this decision and their control over selective channels of distributing branded product has been considerably increased.  

Commission Regulation 593/2010

Once again, while helpfully publishing the fact that the specification for this product has been amended, the Commission gives no hyperlink from this notice to either the original specification or to the amendments, making it more difficult for businesses that wish to avoid infringing the rights conferred by this PDO to do so.   

May Article 27 of Council Regulation 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark be interpreted in such a way as to enable account to be taken not only of the day but also of the hour and minute of filing of an application for registration of a Community trade mark with OHIM (provided that such information has been recorded) for the purposes of establishing temporal priority over a national trade mark application filed on the same day, where the national legislation governing the registration of national trade marks considers the time of filing to be relevant?

Commission Regulation 588/2010

Soprèssa Vicentina is an aged salami which is still produced in the small slaughterhouses dotting the territory of Vicenza, following ancient methods handed down through centuries.  The changes to the Protected Designation of Origin speciication are minor, unless you happen to be a pig from which this product is made:

‘The minimum slaughter age is nine months and may be verified on the basis of the data shown on the mark tattooed on their leg in the first 30 days following birth’ is replaced by ‘The minimum slaughter age is nine months and may be verified on the basis of the data shown on the mark tattooed on their leg or ear in the first 30 days following birth.’ 

Of the 20 countries that have signed up for Singapore so far, 13 are from Europe.

For all the official information you need about the Singapore Treaty, click here.

The Swiss IPO refused registration of the mark ALTEC LANSING for audio equipment (loudspeakers etc.) unless the list of goods was restricted to goods originating from the USA, arguing that Lansing was the capital of Michigan and the sign was misleading for goods not from the USA. We are all well familiar with this argument by now - any geographic indication is considered misleading unless it is impossible to produce the goods in question at the indicated place. And it is certainly not impossible to manufacture loudspeakers in Lansing, although such goods mostly come from China these days.

But this time, the Federal Administrative Court heard the appeal and reversed the decision, permitting the registration of ALTEC LANSING without a limitation of the list of goods. The Court argued that Lansing was virtually unknown to Swiss consumers, despite the fact that Michigan State University was based there (Michigan what?? - I am a graduate of U of M, Ann Arbor...). Lansing was also a surname. Lansing was mentioned only 123 times in Swiss newspapers during the 4 years prior to the filing of the mark. While the understanding of Lansing as a surname was not predominant, together with the fanciful sign ALTEC, no relevant part of the public would perceive Lansing as a geographic indication.

I am glad this case came down this way, and it will hopefully knock some sense into the Swiss IPO. However, I can't shake the feeling the Court was subconsciously influenced by the fact that ALTEC LANSING is a fairly well-known mark for loudspeakers - although the applicant had not claimed that the mark had acquired secondary meaning, and the issue was not addressed in the judgment.

The decision is not final - the IPO can appeal it to the Federal Supreme Court, and in this case, I would not be wholly surprised if they did (although the Court quite cleverly based its judgment on a factual appraisal of the perception  of LANSING by the relevant public, and the Supreme Court is bound by the established facts of the case).

"The outcome of the consultation process is to retain the status quo. 

The international community is still divided on this matter, with different regimes currently operating in the various National Intellectual Property Offices. Developments in this area will be closely monitored and the need for any appropriate changes will be kept under review. On balance it is considered that retaining the status quo, for trade mark examination in Ireland, is the preferred option at this time. While a move to a ‘search and notify’ system would position the Patents Office alongside OHIM it would mean that, in the face of no response from prior rights holders (for whatever reason), the Office would end up registering marks that fail to perform the fundamental function required in Section 6(1) of the Act. There would not be any guarantee of origin and the integrity of the Register would be compromised".

Information supplied by Niamh Hall (FR Kelly, Dublin).

 Ofcom -- the body in the United Kingdom which regulates communications -- has launched consultations on proposed changes to the Broadcasting Code in the UK so as to enable branded products to be placed in British-made TV and radio programmes. These consultations are designed to keep UK law and practice in line with the EU's Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which now permits some forms of product placement. Following the consultations, which end on 17 September 2010-- the final day of this year's MARQUES Conference in Berlin -- brand owners can expect to reap the benefit of a new set of Audiovisual Media Services (Product Placement) Regulations 2010.

The court concluded that such use did not constitute genuine use of the trade mark (Article 15(1) CTMR), in contrast to the first instance decision of the Landgericht Düsseldorf, although it also stated that the use of a mark in a domain name may be sufficient for constituting genuine use in principle. The public would consider the use of the word Zappa as a general descriptive reference, and would not understand such use as a reference to the trade mark owner.

Thank you, Dr Guido Westkamp (QMIPRI), for this information. 

The Swiss Federal Administrative Court upheld a decision by the Swiss Trade Mark Office refusing protection for the depicted figurative mark for cigarettes. It reasoned that the public would believe tobacco products bearing the mark CAPRI (fig.) would originate from the Italian island of the same name, which was misleading because they did not in fact originate from the island of Capri.

The applicant argued in vain that nobody in his right mind would believe that tobacco was grown on Capri, which is a rocky island of only 10 square kilometers and primarily known for its tourism industry. The Court held that this was irrelevant because it was not impossible per se to grow tobacco on Capri. Only when it was impossible to produce the good in question at the place indicated by the geographic indication - example: the Northpole for tobacco - could it be excluded that (part of) the public was misled.

The decision once again shows that the Swiss practice on marks containing geographic indications is uniquely strict - the OAMI registered at least three "CAPRI" marks for tobacco products in class 34. On the right is a view of Capri from the sea. I wish I was there.

Link to decision (German).

The German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) has published the following headnote on its website concerning the registrability of a shape mark depicting a firearm ("Schusswaffe"); case reference 28 W (pat) 502/09 of 28 April 2010

"Firearm"

With regard to the good "firearm" it can usually be assumed that the shape of the good is exclusively product related or needed to obtain a technical result as the case may be. As such, the lifelike reproduction of a firearm cannot be proteced as a shape mark.

The court's advance information which was published on 25 June 2010 can be retrieved by clicking here. (Unofficial translation)

 This issue of the ETMR includes, among other decisions, an opposition before the Irish Patents Office involving the pharmaceutical marks LEXAM and PLEXTAM, where an opposition based on likelihood of confusion was rejected on the ground that the relevant consumer would attribute similarity between the marks to mere coincidence.  It also includes a decision from England and Wales in Maslyukov v Diageo on whether a party can appeal against a decision in which he is successful.

The ETMR supports the Lewis Gaze Award, given annually by MARQUES and presented at its annual meeting.

The General Court of the European Union has today, in Case T-351/08 Matratzen Concord v OHIM, Barranco Schnitzler (MATRATZEN CONCORD), dismissed the appeal by Matratzen Concord against OHIM's decision to uphold an opposition, brought by the proprietor of the national word mark MATRATZEN for goods in Class 20, to its own application to register as a Community trade mark the figurative mark MATRATZEN CONCORD for goods in Classes 10, 20 and 24.  The word "matratzen" means "mattresses" in German, but not in Spanish.  Currently this decision is available only in French and German.