Home » Trade Marks
Category Archives: Trade Marks
On 24th November 2014, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) introduced a “Fast Track” application process for European Union (CTM) trade marks. This allows for certain trade mark applications to be processed, examined and – if accepted – published much faster than under the current examination turnaround times. The typical “fast-track” publication is expected to take only 3-4 weeks from the filing date of the application, if no objections are raised. (more…)
As Halloween approaches IPcopy brings you a skull tingling tale of bad faith……. (more…)
Fourteen years after the adoption of the Directive on Electronic Commerce of 8 June 2000, relating to the liability of the ISPs within the EU, the roles of ISPs have evolved significantly and they no longer work in a solely technical capacity.
In principle, ISPs do not have any say on the content matter, they are simply offering a technical service. This task has however become required across a much broader spectrum since the emergence of Web 2.0, as users now have more opportunity to post and retrieve content on an interactive level.
ISPs which are merely acting as hosts benefit from a special status on non-responsibility. However, the legal obligations of ISPs have increased and in addition to the normal rules of liability, International and European Law have imposed on ISPs obligations to act against trade mark infringement by cooperating with the trade mark owners and the authorities. (more…)
The summer holiday period is coming to an end, the kids are heading back to school and for the first time in weeks there’s actually a full complement of co-workers in your office. IPcopy has been ticking away during the summer season and, just in case you weren’t checking our updates when you were on the beach, here’s a round-up of our posts from mid July through August.
Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from Carmen Champion, an IP barrister in Sydney, on the subject of “use as a trade mark”.
In a couple of recent cases in Australia, dealing with businesses as disparate as home elevators and halal butcheries, the courts have considered (or in one case, ignored!) that question central to trade make disputes: was the mark in question “used as a trade mark”? (more…)
In this case review, which was first published in the June issue of the ITMA review, we look at case T-26/13 (dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co KG v OHIM, CJEU, General Court (Third Chamber), 12 February 2014) and the assessment of likelihood of confusion between the trade marks CALDEA and BALEA.
On 22 July 2010, Semtee filed a Community Trade Mark application for the word mark CALDEA for, inter alia, “soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices” (class 3), “consultancy relating to business management of leisure premises, non-medical, making use of water, in particular heated water, for relaxation, leisure, physical maintenance of and keeping fit in the field of health” (class 35) and “personalised consultancy, advice and assistance relating to the operation of a leisure centre, non-medical, relating to water, in particular heated water, for relaxation, leisure, physical maintenance and keeping fit in the field of health” (class 44).
The application was published on 20 September 2010 and dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co KG (“dm-drogerie”) filed a notice of opposition against registration of the mark for the above-mentioned goods and services based on its earlier international trade mark No 0894004, BALEA, in classes 3, 5 and 8 (covering, inter alia, “soaps, perfumeries, essential oils, preparations for hygienic and beauty use”) designating protection in the European Union (EU). The Applicant claimed infringement under Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
The Opposition Division rejected the opposition and dm-drogerie filed a notice of appeal with OHIM against the decision. (more…)
Following on from our recent blog item detailing the changes in dealing with colour marks at the UK IPO and OHIM, we would like to now consider how these decisions will affect our filing practice in respect of new trade mark applications.
Previously, it was common practice to file for a trade mark in black and white, or grey scale, in order to obtain the broadest protection possible. It was accepted that a mark registered in black and white would allow the proprietor to use the mark in colour and maintain protection. Essentially, it allowed for one application to be filed in black and white, instead of numerous applications for various colour combinations. (more…)
The ITMA London Evening Meeting ‘OHIM & IPO Case Update’ given by Amanda Michaels and Charlotte Scott of Hogarth Chambers took place yesterday and was attended by a number of people from Keltie. Some particular subjects of note that were discussed at the meeting were the Lifestyle Supplies v Ultimate Nutrition Inc case and the Common Communication on the Common Practice of the Scope of Protection of Black & White Marks.