Home » Trade Marks
Category Archives: Trade Marks
On 23 June 2016 the UK public voted in favour of the UK leaving the EU (commonly referred to as ‘Brexit’). If and when the UK formally starts the exit procedure, there will be at least a two-year negotiation period before the exit itself occurs. So, any changes won’t be implemented for some time yet.
Any UK national IP rights will be unaffected by Brexit. Some EU IP rights that have effect in the UK will be affected to different extents. Crucially, no IP rights will be lost as a result of Brexit, although some transitional measures are inevitable.
IPcopy takes a look at the key impact Brexit will have on IP, and what you should be considering now. (more…)
The matter concerns Vision Care At Home Limited (‘VCH’) and Visioncall Limited (‘VL’), both concerned with eye care passports or reports primarily aimed at care homes for the elderly to assist staff in identifying the correct glasses to be worn by those being cared for.
VCH applied to register the mark under Application No. 3032938, as well filing a declaration of invalidity against VL’s UK Registration No. 2652006 for EYE D on the basis of Sections 47(2) and 5(4)(a) and Sections 47(1) and 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (‘the Act’). VL later opposed VCH’s application on the basis of Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) and 5(4)(a) and Section 3(6) of the Act. (more…)
As IPcopy discussed back in 2013, Trade Mark Squatting has long been a concern of European businesses considering entering the Chinese market. Too often, European brands which have not registered their trade marks in China at the earliest possible stage, find that their trade marks are already registered to third parties without a legitimate interest in the mark by the time China features as a potential market in their business plans.
This can cause significant disruption to businesses as these earlier ‘bad faith’ applications act as bars to their own applications. Further, whilst trade mark registration is not a legal requirement to trade in China, many businesses find that their Chinese partners will actually request it as a condition to operate. The consequences of having one’s trade mark application refused in China because of an earlier bad faith application are, therefore, compounded, as walking away and trading without a registered mark may not be a viable option. (more…)
It has been widely reported in the general press in the last few days that ‘image rights’ issues have delayed the signing of the contract that brought Jose Mourinho to Manchester United as its next manager, following the departure of Louis van Gaal. However, as of this morning it appears that these issues have been overcome with confirmation that Mourinho has signed a three-year contract.
As we know, despite the 2015 Rihanna v Topshop Appeal decision, image rights as such are not protected by the English legal system, and the more discerning IP reporters have probably correctly identified that the tricky point might evolve around the registered trade mark for Mourinho’s name. (more…)
The only alternative to the EU is chaos? Brexit and trade marks/designs discussed at the CIPA Symposium
The European Council president Donald Tusk suggested recently that Brexit could bring chaos. Does this doom laden warning extend to the world of IP?
In an earlier post we covered the discussion at the CIPA Symposium on Brexit as it related to the unitary patent system (summary: Brexit probably won’t be good for the unitary patent). In this post we recap some of the issues discussed in the sessions on general legal implications of withdrawal from the EU, the impact on European trade marks and Community registered designs and some wider implications of Brexit. (more…)
Case Review – T-3/15 K-Swiss v OHIM (Représentation de bandes parallèles sur une chaussure) – 4 December 2015 (Decision)
K-Swiss sought registration of the five stripe mark (see blog image) under the CTM designation of International Registration No. 932758 in Class 25 (“athletic shoes, namely tennis shoes, basketball shoes, cross-country and jogging shoes and casual shoes” as of 8 October 2013) on 23 May 2013.
The designation was refused protection on 4 March 2014 under Article 7(1)(b) – devoid of distinctive character. K-Swiss appealed this decision on 23 April 2014.
The Second Board of Appeal (BoA) dismissed this appeal on 30 October 2014 on the basis that the five parallel stripes do not have any original feature, such that they are banal generic embellishment in view of the widespread practice of using a stripe pattern on sports shoes.
The action to the General Court (Second Chamber) was filed on 6 January 2015. (more…)
Following the publication of the EU Trade Mark Directive and Community Trade Mark (CTM) Regulations Regulation (EU) No 2015/2424 (the Amending Regulation), CTM practice is set for a number of important changes.
The initial changes come into effect on 23 March 2016, with further changes to follow. We highlight below the key points which we think you should be aware of: (more…)
On 28 September 1994, Associated Newspapers Limited (‘ANL’) applied to register METRO in Class 16 (Registration No. 1586405 of 24 January 1997).
On 3 October 1997, Bauer Radio Limited (‘BRL’) applied to register METRO RADIO for a range of services covering advertising, marketing and promotional services (Class 35); telecommunications and a broad range of broadcasting services (Class 38); and a range of radio entertainment services and other activities including arranging, organising and provision of concerts, live and musical entertainment (Class 41) (Registration No. 2147054B of 23 July 1999).
On 22 May 2000, ANL filed an application for metro.co.uk and metro.com (series mark) under Application No. 2233378 which was published on 8 February 2008 for a wide range of goods and services in Classes 09 (digital music, etc.), 16, 35 (advertising and promotion of business services, etc.), 36, 38 (telecommunication services, etc.) and 41 (publishing services, organisation of exhibitions and shows, etc.). (more…)
Today we have a guest post from Kei Ikuta of the firm Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu. Kei Ikuta is a Japanese litigation lawyer specialising mainly in employment law, competition law and sports law.
The Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (“TOC”) have decided to withdraw its Olympic logo (picture on the right).
On 24 July 2015, the logo was announced as having beaten 104 other candidates’ designs to be the 2020 Olympic logo. TOC, making the announcement on 1 September 2015, have advised that they would start a new competition to choose a new Olympic logo. (more…)