Recent posts include:
French Courts leave L'Oreal wondering: "was it worth it?"
The Paris Supreme Court has rejected L’Oreal’s appeal following the revocation of two of their registrations and the non-infringement of a third registration due to acquiescence.
Cosmetica Cabinas opposed L’Oreal’s CTM application INOA claiming similarity with their CTM registration for AINHOA, both marks covering beauty and cosmetic products in class 3. In response, L’Oreal claimed Cosmetica Cabinas had infringed L’Oreal’s earlier registrations for NOA, SPECIFIQUE and EXTREME through sales of products in France under Cosmetica Cabinas’ AINHOA mark. As L’Oreal’s three registrations had been registered for more than 5 years L’Oreal were put to proof of use.
Read more on Class 46: http://marques.org/class46/Default.asp?XID=BHA4425
Court of Justice wheeled in to repair the "Repair Clause"
Regular readers of this blog will recall that the issue of replica alloy wheels has exercised the national courts of Europe on several occasions, including the UK case BMW v Round And Metal, [2012] EWHC 2099 (Pat). Now, there is an important referral to the Court of Justice from Civil Court, Milan, First Civil Division, Specialised Section for Business Law under reference C-397/16 Audi AG v Acacia Srl & Pneusgarda Srl. The questions asked are a trifle windy, but essentially they ask whether the "Repair Clause" of Article 110 CDR should be interpreted narrowly so as not to apply to accessory-type products (like alloy wheels) where the customer has a choice about the shape - i.e. "must-match" products. The questions are:
Read more on Class 99: http://marques.org/class99/Default.asp?XID=BHA757
The erotics of branding
Read more on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/1838945/1838945-6173399213150343171
Don’t forget MARQUES is also on Facebook and Twitter.
Issue 069
Events lined up in the coming months include three workshops on the USPTO, an arbitration/mediation workshop and the second Luxury Brand Seminar
