Home » Trade Marks
Category Archives: Trade Marks
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…)
The UK’s only museum dedicated entirely to brands is relocating on 6 October 2015 to larger premises on London’s Lancaster Road. Since it opened in Notting Hill’s Colville Mews in 2005, visitors to the Museum of Brands have increased fourfold, to a staggering forty thousand in 2014. Continued growth and success have led the Museum to find a new, larger home at the London Lighthouse building, on Lancaster Road. As well as providing unrivalled insight into the history of British consumer society from the late 1800s, the move will enable the Museum to offer two unique venue spaces for hire during the day and the evening, perfect for conferences, drinks receptions and much more. (more…)
The following article is a review of case O/135/15 at the UKIPO.
Keystone IEA Limited (the Opponent) opposed Keystone Wealth Management Limited’s (the Applicant) Trade Mark Application No. 2655215 for “mortgage & protection advice, financial services” in Class 36 on the basis of Section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (similar to an earlier mark for identical/similar services, resulting in a likelihood of confusion). The Opponent relied upon its Trade Mark Registration No. 2641172 covering “estate agents” in Class 36.
The Applicant responded stating that the services were sufficiently distinguishable, meaning there was no likelihood of confusion.
No further submissions were filed and a decision was made on the papers. (more…)
Proof of use should be timely and clear – case law review T-41/12 LS Fashion, LLC v OHIM
This case concerns an opposition filed by Sucesores de Miguel Herreros, SA (the Opponent), the predecessor in title to the Intervener, Gestión de Activos Isorana, SL (Isorana) on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (CTMR), claiming a likelihood of confusion with its earlier Spanish trade mark registration for LOREN SCOTT, covering “clothes for ladies, men and children, included [sic] boots, shoes and slippers” in class 25. (more…)
Wragge Lawrence Graham and Co held its annual Brands & Designs Seminar in London on 25 June 2015. As you would expect, the Seminar was extremely informative and interesting, and well attended!
Kate Swaine kicked off proceedings by discussing the rise in passing off cases throughout the last year. Kate posed the question as to whether the recent increase in passing off cases was highlighting a new trend. She asked whether this was due to misrepresentation seemingly being easier to define than likelihood of confusion, the fact that a brand has now expanded considerably further than just a ‘name’ and celebrities are more conscious of their own brand power, as well as the apparent constraints of a trade mark registration, making passing off a more attractive option. (more…)
Today we have a little tip for anyone who has run into difficulties locating a patent or patent application that is mentioned in the context of a product being marketed under the words “patent pending”, “patented” or similar. Sometimes it is easy to locate the patent property in question because, for example, the company offering the product/service is also the patent owner. Sometimes however it can be difficult to find the correct patent property.
This may be because the company in question owns thousands of patents and patent applications (good luck for example identifying all the patent filings made in relation to the Apple Watch). However, in some cases this is because the company selling the “patented” product/service is not the patent owner.
Perhaps the patent/patent application is held by a different company in the same company group or perhaps the inventors own the patents. In such circumstances what else can be done to try and locate the patent/patent application in question? (more…)
In the final article in this Intellectual Property (“IP”) series, we look at the protection and commercialisation of brands or trade marks.
Trade marks are business identifiers which are generally comprised of one or a combination of the following elements: words, logos, slogans and even colours, shapes and sounds. Generally, anything in which your business has acquired goodwill and acts as an indication of trade origin can be considered a trade mark.
It is recommended to protect those trade marks of value to your business by registering them at the IP offices of the countries of commercial interest. Trade mark registrations provide prima facie evidence of a business’ rights in a mark and ensure that business is able to prevent third parties causing confusion in the marketplace, or taking advantage of its goodwill in its mark, by using an identical or similar trade mark.
Once in place, trade mark registrations can also be licensed or assigned to generate revenue for your business and are valuable business assets. (more…)
On 14 October, Coca-Cola Company (“Coca Cola”) filed an opposition against the application based on four of its earlier figurative CTMs; (more…)