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.
Who we all are...
WEDNESDAY, 5 MARCH 2014
General Court: Vogue v. Vogue
In case T-229/12, the same parties were concerned(Advance Magazine Publishers Inc v. Mr. Lopez) as in Case T-37/12 (summarized below), but for the contested figurative CTM represented here which was registered for
the same goods in Class 18 including furthermore “accessories”.
Both the OD and BoA upheld the opposition as regards umbrellas, parasols and
accessories, since a likelihood of confusion could not be excluded due to the
identity or similarity of those goods and of those protected by the earlier CTM
VOGUE and the similarity of the signs at issue.
The General Court annulled the contested decision
finding OHIM had erred upholding the opposition for ‘accessories´. Carefully reviewing
the goods at issue, the Court found that they are either identical (umbrellas)
or have a low degree of similarity (parasols and umbrellas) or were not
sufficiently identifiable (accessories) –according to the IP translator
standard (see par.36) for the Board of Appeal to be able actually to assess
their degree of similarity with the goods protected by the earlier CTM VOGUE,
Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 00.03
General Court, Vogue, goods, accessories,
Another Vogue, always in Vogue here
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
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