PARTAGER

Cut and Paste, not confusiong !

The OHIM Board of Appeal ruled on March 7, 2006 that the earlier mark and were dissimilar from   The Opposition Division had first retained a likelihood of confusion due to the common device.According to the Board, the size and central position of the word part FSA however dominate the contested trademark. This is in…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

Will the rabbit move fast enough ?

In the context of an opposition based on QUICKIES and other deriving QUICK trademarks lodged against the CTM for the Opposition Division recognized a risk of confusion by focussing its analysis exclusively on the earlier trademark QUICKIES. The Board of Appeal and the European Court of First Instance confirmed this position.

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

Change of case law as to phonetic similarity

The CJEC ruled on March 23,2006, that a mere phonetic similarity between two signs does not necessarily give rise to a likelihood of confusion. The appellant contested the earlier OHIM decisions which retained that the phonetic similarity was not counterbalancing the visual and intellectual differences between:               /                    ZIRH (Earlier trademark)        (contested application) The new…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

The « DADVSI CODE »

The “DADVSI CODE” : The mystery of the author’s right bill is to be over Since last winter, French citizens and Internet users have been held breathless by the multiple steps of the DADVSI (meant for Limitations and exceptions to Copyright and neighboring rights in the digital environment) bill project. The bill has been reviewed…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

10 YEARS OF OHIM PRACTICE…And still differences

After one decade of Community Trademark practice, we have decided to conduct a practical analysis of the main differences between the practice of national Trademark offices of the EU member states, on the one hand, and OHIM habits on the other hand. You will find our interviews with our European associates in each issue of…

Lire la suite

Obelix/ Mobilix

In OBELIX vs./ MOBILIX (October 27,2005), the European Court of First Instance first denied similarity because of the wide formulation « electrotechnical apparatus and instruments, electronics » whereas a specific protection of telecommunication apparatus and instruments could have been easily obtained by the opponent when reciting the list of products. The Court even goes further in absurdness…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

IT SOUNDS !

OHIM stipulated recently the conditions for filing sound trademark and indicated that an MP3 file may now be joined with the technical conditions providing that its size does not exceed one Megabyte and that it does not allow loops or streaming.   This does not mean that the MP3 file is sufficient. In fact, it…

Lire la suite

Retail sale services under the European recent practice

In eight months of birth, the definitive allowance of retail services under trademark registrations in the European Community has lead the OHIM President to further intervene and the Opposition division to show its difficulties in handling this new possibility.     Registration of retail sale services Community trademark was first granted by the OHIM Board…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

PERFIX/CERFIX

On February 1st, 2006 – PERFIX/ CERFIX The European Court of First Instance upheld an opposition based on trademark CERFIX against trademark PERFIX as reproduced here above. (Community trademark application) VS./ (Earlier trademark opposed) The reasoning was to minimize the visual differences as regards the strong phonetic likeliness of the signs, especially because of the…

Lire la suite