PARTAGER

Nocan Vs/ Minitec

The cour de Cassation decided a case on February 20, 2007 which confirms a line of cases issued since 2006 concerning the proof of the originality of a creation. The company, Nocan, is the owner of a model and claims the protection of an old article 511-3 of the CPI against the company, Minitec. In…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

ALREX vs./ ARTEX

  ALREX vs./ ARTEX In the ALREX vs./ ARTEX case, further to the appeal filed against the European Court of First Instance decision, the Advocate General gave his opinion: The acquisition decision is made when the medicine is prescribed by professionals. Thus, when a comparison is made between two pharmaceuticals available only on prescription the…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

Please answer the Iphone tm

The dispute between Apple and Cisco relating to the trademark IPHONE was just settled on February 21, 2007.  The two companies were opposing since Apple had launched its new widescreen mobile phone on January, 9, 2007, one month after Linksys ( a Cisco subsidiary) had launched its Iphone.

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

Mars VS Nars

VS./ On February 8, 2007, the CFI confirmed that these marks were phonetically identical in their most significant parts. However, the prominent size and the black and white colours of the « mars » mark made the device stand out and « mars » referred to that device (contrary to the « nars » trademark). Conceptually, the marks did not share…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

Polar VS Polaris

POLAR vs./ On January 8, 2007, the Second Board of Appeal regarded these marks as different. The signs are unequal but short in length and only the trademark POLARIS includes a figurative element. The Board retained the difference in the last syllable as significant. Intellectually, POLAR refers to the Earth pole, whereas POLARIS has no…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

LexConcept team at the « Franchise Expo Paris » tradeshow

LexConcept team at the « Franchise Expo Paris » tradeshow As a member of the experts’ committee of the French Franchising Federation, Eric SCHAHL (partner) and the team of our LexConcept department were present between March 23 and 26, 2007 at the franchising tradeshow of Paris. They informed and advised franchisees and franchisors on the appropriate securing…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

SIMPLICIO vs./ COMPLICIO

SIMPLICIO vs./ COMPLICIO On September 28, 2006, the French Court of First Instance denied the risk of confusion between SIMPLICIO and COMPLICIO for financial affairs in class 36. For the judge, SIMPLICIO refers in French to simplicity whereas COMPLICIO refers to complicity and their lack of conceptual link was regarded as sufficient. This decision completely eluded the…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

RESPICORT vs./ RESPICUR

On February 13 2007, contrary to the Board of Appeal of the OHIM, the CFI judged that, although professionals might perceive some conceptual differences between RESPICORT and RESPICUR in class 5, the relevant public, which also includes end consumers, is likely to confuse them phonetically, visually and conceptually.

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

Exclusive Interview of Mrs. Sophie Lalaude in charge of the « Name Work group » (NWG) at the AFSSAPS (French Health Products Safety Agency) – PART I What is the role of the NWG?

 Focus on the French Health Products Safety Agency    The French Health Products Safety Agency (Afssaps) was created by the law of 1 July 1998, passed to strengthen existing monitoring and healthsafety systems, in order to provide an improved response to the increasing diversity and interaction of health safety issues relating to healthcare products. The Afssaps…

Lire la suite