Included in this issue: Commonality of trade mark has Birkenstock on the back foot; Buyer's Dream turned Buyer's Nightmare – the dangers of disregarding IP; Learning the lessons of publishing photographs on the internet without consent and more...
Commonality of trade mark has Birkenstock on the back foot
- Birkenstock unsuccessful in registering its shoe sole pattern as a trade mark
- Appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union
- What is the test for determining whether a sign comprising a repeating motif lacks distinctive character?
For further details click here
Buyer's Dream turned Buyer's Nightmare – the dangers of disregarding IP
- Individual creates IP while providing services to a company
- for tax reasons, the services are provided under a personal service company arrangement
- should the individual be considered an employee for IP law purposes?
For further details click here
Learning the lessons of publishing photographs on the internet without consent
- School pupil uses a photo from the internet as part of a school project
- School chooses to publish the pupil's report on its website
- CJEU interprets the scope of 'communication to the public' in the context of the posting on one website of a photograph previously posted, without any restrictions, on another website.
For further details click here
Court of Appeal hears healthy debate about construction of exclusive licence agreement
- Licence agreement gives licensee exclusive rights to use seven trade marks
- Licensor validly terminates the licence as regards five of the trade marks, on the grounds of non-use
- Can the licensor use those five marks without breaching the exclusivity of the licence?
For further details click here
Still no break for Nestlé in KitKat trade mark dispute
- Latest chapter in the long-running dispute concerning the validity of a 'four-fingered' three-dimensional trade mark
- European Court of Justice dismisses appeals brought by Nestlé, the EUIPO and Mondelēz
- What are the evidential requirements for demonstrating acquired distinctiveness?
For further details click here
European court gives a "lift" to brand owners
- Trader buys branded forklift trucks outside of the EEA, removes trade marks and adds its own distinctive signs
- No suggestion of trader using marks that are the same or similar to the brand owner's marks
- Does this amount to a breach of EU trade mark laws?