CLASS 99
The blog for design law, in Europe and worldwide. This weblog is written by a team of design experts and fans. To contribute, or join us, or for any other reason, email class99@marques.org.
Want to receive Class 99 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.
Click here subscribe for free.
Who we all are...
FRIDAY, 9 AUGUST 2013
The writing is on the wall for Beifa ...
The General Court has ruled on what may be the end of a long story concerning highlighter pens, in T-608/11, Beifa Group Co. Ltd v OHIM, Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer GmbH intervening - Instruments for writing.
This is the case where, previously, the design had been rejected over what turned out to have been a 2D mark rather than the 3D mark which should have been considered.
As we reported, the General Court sent it back to OHIM for a decision, and it was, predictably, revoked over the correct cite on more or less the same basis. Once more there was an appeal and again, predictably, the design was held invalid. Most of the decision concerns the right to be heard and the extent of appeals.
From a design law point of view, the only interesting issues are, in relation to prior marks, the finding that non-identical marks can be cited, and the application of the evolving principle that banal features are to be "[The Board of Appeal] held that small surface interruptions [were] common for writing instruments as a means to enhance their grip. Consequently, [it held that] the public [paid] less attention to the particular design of the highlighter’s surface and more attention to its overall shape. The earlier [three-dimensional] mark and the contested [design were] therefore considered similar’" Posted by: David Musker @ 17.50
Tags: appeal, designs and trade marks, general court, invalidation, OHIM,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA481
The writing is on the wall for Beifa ...
The General Court has ruled on what may be the end of a long story concerning highlighter pens, in T-608/11, Beifa Group Co. Ltd v OHIM, Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer GmbH intervening - Instruments for writing.
This is the case where, previously, the design had been rejected over what turned out to have been a 2D mark rather than the 3D mark which should have been considered.
As we reported, the General Court sent it back to OHIM for a decision, and it was, predictably, revoked over the correct cite on more or less the same basis. Once more there was an appeal and again, predictably, the design was held invalid. Most of the decision concerns the right to be heard and the extent of appeals.
From a design law point of view, the only interesting issues are, in relation to prior marks, the finding that non-identical marks can be cited, and the application of the evolving principle that banal features are to be "[The Board of Appeal] held that small surface interruptions [were] common for writing instruments as a means to enhance their grip. Consequently, [it held that] the public [paid] less attention to the particular design of the highlighter’s surface and more attention to its overall shape. The earlier [three-dimensional] mark and the contested [design were] therefore considered similar’" Posted by: David Musker @ 17.50
Tags: appeal, designs and trade marks, general court, invalidation, OHIM,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA481
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 99 Archive
