We´ve added guides to European Union Trade Mark procedures to our existing jurisdictional guides on trademark Opposition, Invalidity and Revocation. Who can file such proceedings, where and when? Can proceedings be avoided through amicable settlement? We cover these issues and more taking into account changes which came into effect on 1 October 2017 as a result of the second wave of the Legislative
The European Commission has released a position paper on “Intellectual property rights (including geographical indications)” giving us the first indication of how the Commission will approach the Brexit negotiations with the UK regarding Intellectual Property Rights (“IPR“). The Commission has set up a Taskforce on Article 50 negotiations with the United Kingdom to prepare the
Last month we gave a Trademarks and Brands webinar focusing on European Union Trademark Protection. In this webinar, Pan-European trademark attorney, Julie Schmitt, and United States trademark attorney, Valerie Brennan, highlight the differences between trademark rights acquisition, protection, and enforcement in the EU and the U.S. They also touch on hot topics in EU trademark law, such as the
IP Enforcement Focus is our series of written, video and audio posts which plug into your current European enforcement issues. These posts cover IP related court cases as well as relevant political and economic developments in this area. Over the last quarter, we have published 12 summaries of key IP enforcement developments, including 4 v-logs. This roundup outlines each commentary with a link
The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt recently ruled on the territorial scope of cease and desist claims and the law applicable to damages claims in a case where infringing acts occurred in several EU Member States (Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt, case ref. 6 U 4/15). Generally, the EU trademark regulation provides unitary protection of
The CJEU returns to the consequences of the unitary character of EU trade marks in its recent combit / Commit ruling of 22 September 2016. The court confirms the principles it had laid down in Chronopost in 2011: The aim of protecting the trade mark functions trumps territoriality. Or, in other words: If the use
In the second Vlog of the IP Enforcement Series we report on another recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union which deals with the relationship between infringement and parallel opposition proceedings. The decision demonstrates how they can take quite different paths. Click here to watch our short V-log.
EUIPO’s Boards of Appeal have recently introduced expedited appeal proceedings to deal with urgent cases. Requests for this option can be submitted by appellants together with the statement of grounds or, for defendants, with their reply. It appears unlikely that the Boards will set expedited proceedings of their own motion. As to formalities, there’s no
Judgment of 22 June 2016 in Case C-207/15 P Nissan Jidosha KK v EUIPO The Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU) has held that where an EU trade mark (EUTM) has been partially renewed the owner still enjoys the six month grace period in which to file any further partial renewal requests relating to
The referendum question has finally been answered but a myriad other questions have arisen from the ballot box. In this post we look at three questions affecting trade mark portfolios, IP contracts and the UPC. We also invite you to learn more about how Brexit could affect your business in our full post referendum report here.
The EUIPO’s Board of Appeal has held that neither a heightened degree of attentiveness in relation to pharmaceutical products, nor the fact that conflicting marks primarily coincide in elements which health professionals might understand as an allusion to an active ingredient, can rule out a likelihood of confusion. This is all the more true if
The new European Union Trade Mark Regulation (“EUTMR”) comes into force tomorrow and represents the most significant change in European trade mark law in the last 20 years. Rather than setting out all provisions in full, the text of the new EUTMR only sets out the provisions of the previous regulation that have been amended,
In our previous post we mentioned that the renewal fee situation for EUTMs was no longer clear, and that we considered the approach put forward by OHIM in its draft guidelines to be incorrect. We are pleased to report that the situation has now been clarified. OHIM has today published a President’s Communication confirming that:
In our previous post we mentioned that brand owners should consider deferring renewals of EUTMs until after the introduction of the new EUTM Regulation where possible to save money. Unfortunately, the renewal fee situation is no longer clear. The new Regulation will enter into force on 23 March 2016. However, OHIM has issued draft guidelines
Today, the European Commission published the new Trade Marks Directive (governing national trade marks across the EU) and the new Community Trade Mark Regulation (governing EU wide trade marks) in the EU Official Journal (L 341). These texts aim to make EU trade mark law fit for the challenges of business in the 21st Century.
Yesterday the European Parliament approved the biggest change in European trademark law in the last 20 years. Comprising a new Trade Marks Directive (governing national trade marks across the EU) and a new Community Trade Mark Regulation (governing EU wide trade marks), it aims to make EU trade mark law fit for the challenges of