Header graphic for print
LimeGreenIP News

Tag Archives: EUTM

Covering up doesn’t get you off the hook – criminal liability for the import of counterfeit branded clothing

German Federal Court of Justice, ref. no. 5 StR 554/17 Counterfeiters typically make tremendous efforts to cover up their identity and the details of their actions. By doing so, they aim to both prevent trademark owners from bringing civil law claims as well as to avoid criminal prosecution through law enforcement authorities. The German Federal Court

UK & EU Focus on non-traditional trade marks and overcoming the hurdles

Since its inception, the harmonised national EU trade mark legislation – and later the EUTM system – has opted for a flexible approach to non-traditional trade marks. In principle “any sign” capable of indicating origin may constitute a trade mark, resulting in several non-traditional marks being registered. These include colours, shapes, sounds, smells, patterns, holograms,

EUIPO’s “new” types of marks in practice: Any takers?

Since 2016, European trademark law has gone through its most substantial reform since the implementation of the (former) Community trademark system in 1996. One of the changes that took effect as of 1 October 2017 opened up the opportunity for trademark owners to obtain protection for new types of marks as these no longer require

UPDATE: UK Government comments on Draft EU Withdrawal Agreement

On 19 March the EU and the UK agreed the terms of a Brexit transition period ending on 31 December 2020. An updated colour-coded version of the EU’s Draft Withdrawal Agreement was published by the negotiators indicating which articles are provisionally agreed (highlighted in green), agreed from a policy perspective but subject to the drafting

adidas victorious again in defending its rights to the Three Stripes

The General Court has once again upheld adidas’ oppositions against two copycat applications for two stripes positioned on a shoe. The two decisions issued on 1 March 2018 (in Cases T-629/16 and T-85/16) come as part of the long-standing trade mark dispute between adidas and Shoe Branding*. The cases involved Shoe Branding’s two applications for

Europe – General Court: Bad faith’s link to likelihood of confusion

(Case analysis: T-687/16 – Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v EUIPO / Joaquín Nadal Esteban) Successfully proving bad faith in a cancellation action can be a challenge. An additional hurdle can arise if the mark allegedly applied for in bad faith covers dissimilar goods or services. The General Court (GC) confirmed that bad faith must

Europe: The General Court agrees – it’s genuine!

Judgment of 17 January 2018 in Case T-68/16 Deichmann v EUIPO – Munich The General Court (GC) upheld the Board of Appeal’s (BoA) finding that evidence showing minor differences in a cross device nevertheless clearly constitutes genuine use of the cross device as registered. What happened at EUIPO? Deichmann filed a revocation action (based on

Starbucks rocks for first time in Luxembourg

Judgment of the General Court, 16 January 2018 in case T-398/16, Starbucks Corp. vs EUIPO* In 2014, Starbucks opposed the below EUTM application seeking protection for “services for providing drinks“, services for which Starbucks is famous throughout the EU.   Starbucks relied both on the existence of a likelihood of confusion (Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR) and the fact that

EUTMs: “Strategic” re-filings and the GC’s last word – for now – on related bad faith & proof of use

General Court (GC) judgment in case T-736/15, 19 October Re-filings – legitimate interest versus bad faith Trademark re-filings can have a legitimate interest which could be to slightly amend the specification of goods and/or services of its previous rights or to modernise its trademarks (e.g. slightly changing the stylisation of its figurative trademark) – see

New on LimeGreen IP know-how: EUTM opposition, invalidity & revocation guides following legislative reform

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

European Commission paper on Brexit and IP

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

EU/U.S. – Trademark Protection: Recorded comparative session

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 : Europe – Quarterly round-up

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

Not so unitary after all? Cease & desist and damages claims law in EUTM infringements

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

A post–Chronopost post: CJEU on territorial scope of EUTMs

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

EUIPO: Fast-forward button and single member decisions for appeals

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