Log in

CLASS 46


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.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
THURSDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2010
GRAIN MILLERS go for ruling on "more than local significance" use
Case T-430/08 Grain Millers, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market is being appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union, where it will be known as Case C-447/10 P.

The decision under appeal involvedopposition proceedings between Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG and Grain Millers, Inc. in which the GmbH opposed Community trade mark registration by the Inc of the mark GRAIN MILLERS, based on its own earlier sign GRAIN MILLERS. GmbH was asked to furnish evidence of use of its earlier sign.  According to the appellant, 

"The General Court has previously, in the case Alberto Jorge Moreira da Fonsecal OHIM - General Optica, T-318/06 to T-321/06 ... addressed the interpretation of the purpose of the condition "of more than mere local significance" found in Article 8(4) of the Regulation, namely to restrict the possibilities of conflict to those which may exist with signs which are truly significant and that this should be assessed not only from geographical dimension but also from an economical dimension of the sign's significance, which is assessed in the light of the length of time for which it has fulfilled its function in the course of trade and the degree to which it has been used.

 However, in the appealed decision the General Court has not adopted this approach, and there is nothing that suggests the General Court even was aware of the principles laid down in that case. The applicant submits that the General Court has erroneously held that Article 8(4) does not require proof of genuine use of the sign in support of the opposition as is required by Article 43(2) of the Regulation. The General Court has erroneously set aside previous case law regarding assessment of evidence and the requisite standard of proof".

As the CTM register and the registers of national jurisdictions become increasingly crowded and many businesses feel that it is already too hard to secure registration in the face of local or distant oppositions, the approach taken by the Court of Justice is important and may be indicative of its wider appraisal of the policy which underlies Article 8(4).

Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 12.22
Tags: evidence of use, "more than mere local significance",
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA2101
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment


MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.


The Class 46 Archive






 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTACT

info@marques.org
+44 (0)116 2747355
POST ADDRESS

9 Cartwright Court, Cartwright Way
Bardon, Leicestershire
LE67 1UE

EMAIL

Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
ingrid.de.groot@marques.org
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
aromeo@marques.org
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
editor@marques.org
Robert Harrison
Webmaster
robertharrison@marques.org
BLOGS

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox