Header graphic for print
LimeGreenIP News

Tag Archives: EUTM

CJEU: Castles, candy, candlesticks – no happy end at Neuschwanstein?

Court of Justice of the European Union, 6 September 2018, Case C-488/16 P BSGE v EUIPO/Freistaat Bayern King Ludwig II. of Bavaria was without a doubt an architectural visionary. During his reign in the second half of the 19th century, he initiated the construction of various impressive buildings all across his kingdom which now form

‘Polo’ wins enhanced distinctiveness”chukkers” to offset weak distinctive character

In this EUTM case the General Court (GC) decided for The Polo/Lauren Company LP, concluding that alleged weak distinctive character of the earlier mark in regard to certain goods was amply compensated by the enhanced distinctive character that the earlier mark has acquired through the use in trade. 1st Chukker: In 2014, the EUTM applicant

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