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 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,
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
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
OHIM recently introduced a new tool which will make it easier to predict whether the specifications of goods and services covered by a Community trade mark application will be accepted by the examiner or not. The “Goods and Services Builder” can be found on OHIM’s website: https://oami.europa.eu Here’s a quick guide to how it works:
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
In view of a recent OHIM Board of Appeal decision, opponents relying on “re-filed marks” which are not subject to the use requirement should be aware that they may nevertheless be required to prove use. A re-filed mark is a mark filed by a proprietor who owns a prior mark for the same sign for