Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
Click here subscribe for free.
Who we all are...
MARQUES RELOADED: Berlin brief no.6
The post-prandial session on Day Two of the MARQUES Conference is traditionally split between the Workshops -- which are increasingly well attended -- and the tourist trips, of which this Kat should not wish to pretend any current familiarity. A choice of five Workshops, each of high standard and populated by equally well-informed presenters and participants, means that whichever one you attend you still you're missing out.
This Class 46 team member attended the Workshop of MARQUES's Amicus Curiae Team on cases currently pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union. MARQUES does not always contribute amicus advice to the Court, but each significant case -- whether specifically related to trade mark law or in involving topics such as enforcement of rights -- is considered.
The Workshop began with mention of the sad loss of the inspirational Berenika Depo, who was an enthusiastic member of the Amicus Curiae Team at the time of her sudden death earlier this year, and a brief summary of the cases discussed in the corresponding Workshop last year. This year's cases were then introduced, explained and analysed by team members Hans-Friedrich Czekay, Carles Prat, Roland Mallinson and Martin Viefhues. This year's choice was
Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 13.21* C-406/09 Realchemie v Bayer CropScience, a reference on the question whether the enforcement of a court decision on an IP dispute belongs to the court in which the order is made or the country in which enforcement is to take place;
* C-323/09 Interflora v Marks & Spencer, another Google AdWord case, in which the 10 questions originally asked by the referring court have been refined and reduced to just four;
* C-495/09 Nokia v HMRC, one of the cases referred for a preliminary ruling on the detention of counterfeit goods which are physically present in the EU but are not on the market there because they are in transit between two non-EU countries (noted here);
* C-482/09 Budejovicky Budvar v Anheuser-Busch, a reference from the UK relating to the meaning of the word 'acquiesced' under Article 9(1) of Directive 89/104, following some crafty manoeuvring by Anheuser-Busch, noted here.
* C-307/10 CIPA v Registrar of Trade Marks (the IP TRANSLATOR case, testing out the contrasting practices of the UK IPO and OHIM with regard to the scope of protection conferred upon a trade mark where the specification of goods is made in relation to the class heading, discussed here).
Tags: MARQUES conference report,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA2012
