Home » Trade Marks » ITMA London Evening Meeting ‘OHIM & IPO Case Update’

ITMA London Evening Meeting ‘OHIM & IPO Case Update’

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

logo-itmaThe 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.

Lifestyle Supplies v Ultimate Nutrition Inc (R1462/2012-G Grand Board of Appeal), which pulls back on OHIM’s sometimes mechanical approach to likelihood of confusion (LoC), i.e. if there is a finding of similarity of marks and goods/services, then there is automatically a LoC.  A key point was the finding that the level of protection conferred by a mark goes hand in hand with the distinctive character i.e. weak marks get weak protection.  Also, the mechanical approach goes against the rationale of the Community Trade Mark Regulations to give too much importance in assessing LoC to non-distinctive elements, taken alone or in combination.  This decision can be found here.

Common Communication on the Common Practice of the Scope of Protection of Black &White (“B&W”) Marks (link).  This looks to formalise the answers to the following questions:

  • Is a trade mark in B&W and/or greyscale from which priority is claimed identical to the same mark in colour?
  • Is an earlier trade mark in B&W and/or greyscale identical to the same mark in colour when assessing relative grounds?
  • Is the use of a colour version of a trade mark registered in B&W/greyscale (or vice-versa) acceptable for the purpose of establishing genuine use?

OHIM will introduce the practice from 2 June 2014.  Adoption of the practice will vary in EU countries.

Ben Britter  30 April 2014

 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: