Header graphic for print
LimeGreenIP News

Tag Archives: General Court

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

Europe – General Court: EUTM revocation action takes the biscuit

(Judgments of 23 October 2017 in Cases T-404/16 and T-418/16 – Galletas Gullón SA (Gullón) v EUIPO) The General Court has recently overturned two EUIPO Board of Appeal decisions which deemed Gullón’s marks as used to be different to their registered 3D trade marks shown below due to differences in the dominant elements. It held

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

EU: Chocolate Packaging – European General Court confirms that basic two-coloured packaging for chocolate is not inherently distinctive

Judgment of 10 May 2016 in Case T‑806/14 August Storck KG v EUIPO In 2013, August Storck KG filed an International Registration designating the European Union to protect the following packaging design as a trade mark: The application covered “confectionery, chocolate, chocolate products, pastries, ice-cream, preparations for making the aforementioned products” in class 30. The

EU – DARJEELING: A question of “exceptional strength”

European General Court considers that a reputation of “exceptional strength” can lead to an image transfer within the meaning of Article 8(5) CTMR even for dissimilar goods. The Tea Board brought oppositions against four Community trade mark applications for figurative signs containing the word DARJEELING in classes 25, 35 and 38 in the name of

EU: Relatively high level of attention in the field of pharmaceutical products

Once more the General Court has confirmed that the relevant public in the field of pharmaceutical products – consisting both of medical professionals and patients – displays, in general, a “relatively high” level of attentiveness vis-à-vis pharmaceutical trademarks (judgment of 24 September 2014, Case T-493/12, Sanofi SA v. OHIM / GP Pharm SA). The General

EU: No res judicata from OHIM’s opposition decisions

General Court decision of 23 September 2014 – TEGO / MEGO, T-11/13)  The judgment of the General Court concerned a cancellation action brought by Tegometall International based on numerous registrations for the trade marks TEGO and TEGOMETALL against the Community trade mark “MEGO” for furniture and metal shelving. In an unusually short (4 pages) judgment