Budéjovický Budvar, národní podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 880; [2012] WLR (D) 190
“Where a longstanding situation of honest concurrent user of the same mark for goods had come about, each user could register its mark, and each could stop third parties from using it, but neither could stop the other.”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc: [2012] EWCA Civ 729; [2012] WLR (D) 166
“Where the proprietor of a registered Community design, the validity of which was already in issue in proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) or another Community design court, brought a counterclaim alleging infringement of the design against a claimant who had issued a claim in a Community design court seeking a declaration of non-infringement, the stay of proceedings required by article 91(1) of the Community Design Regulation was a stay of the counterclaim, not the claim.”
WLR Daily, 30th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH (Case C-523/10); [2012] WLR (D) 117
“Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters meant that an action relating to infringement of a trade mark registered in a member state because of the use, by an advertiser, of a keyword identical to that trade mark on a search engine website operating under a country-specific top-level domain of another member state could be brought before either the courts of the member state in which the trade mark was registered or the courts of the member state of the place of establishment of the advertiser.”
WLR Daily, 19th April 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“An Australian man has been ordered to transfer his ownership of the richardbranson.xxx domain name to UK entrepreneur Richard Branson.”
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd February 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH (Case C-119/10); [2012] WLR (D) 20
“A service provider who, under an order from and on the instructions of another person, filled packaging which was supplied to it by the other person who, in advance, affixed to it a sign which was identical with, or similar to, a sign protected as a trade mark did not itself make use of the sign that was liable to be prohibited under that provision.”
WLR Daily, 15th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Bookmaker William Hill has lost an appeal against a High Court ruling that found the gambling giant’s online casino brand 32Vegas infringed a rival company’s trademarks.”
The Lawyer, 25th January 2012
Source: www.thelawyer.com
“The UK’s Trade Mark Registry has partially revoked, but mostly upheld, Cadbury’s right to trade mark a particular shade of purple in relation to chocolate products it manufactures.”
OUT-LAW.com, 8th November 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
“Lady Gaga may call her fans ‘little monsters’ but it appears she has no love for Moshi Monsters, after taking legal action in an effort to stop the children’s social network using an animated character, singer Lady Goo Goo. The Paparazzi singer gained an interim injunction against the parent company of the wildly popular Moshi Monsters, banning Lady Goo Goo from performing songs on YouTube, the Guardian has learned.”
The Guardian, 13th October 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Patents County Court (PCC) will be able to order damages payments of up to £500,000 for infringement of copyright and trade mark rights under a new law that came into effect on Saturday.”
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd October 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
Interflora Inc and another v Marks & Spencer plc (Case C-323/09); [2011] WLR (D) 281
“Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC and article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark was to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark was entitled to prevent a competitor from advertising on the basis of a keyword which was identical with the trade mark and which had been selected in an internet referencing service by the competitor without the proprietor’s consent, where that use was liable to have an adverse effect on one of the functions of the trade mark. Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104 and article 9(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 was to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark with a reputation was entitled to prevent a competitor from advertising on the basis of a keyword corresponding to that trade mark, which the competitor had, without the proprietor’s consent, selected in an internet referencing service, where the competitor thereby took unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark (free-riding) or where the advertising was detrimental to that distinctive character (dilution) or to that repute (tarnishment).”
WLR Daily, 22nd September 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc
“Acquiescence, within the meaning of article 9(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC, was a concept of European Union law and the proprietor of an earlier trade mark could not be held to have acquiesced in the long and well-established honest use, of which he had long been aware, by a third party of a later trade mark which was identical with that of the proprietor if that proprietor was not in any position to oppose that use. Registration of the earlier trade mark in the member state concerned did not constitute a prerequisite for the running of the period of limitation in consequence of acquiescence prescribed in article 9(1).”
(Case C-482/09); [2011] WLR (D) 279
WLR Daily, 22nd September 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The public would be likely to be confused if three original members of Bucks Fizz were allowed to register a trade mark that included the band’s name, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 6th September 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
“The UK intellectual property office has been making its mind up which members of Bucks Fizz, the pop group which won the 1981 Eurovision song contest, are eligible to claim the name as their own.”
The Guardian, 24th August 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Consumer rights journalist Martin Lewis has won a High Court case protecting his ‘Money Saving Expert’ trade mark.”
OUT-LAW.com, 27th July 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
“EBay and other online marketplaces will be liable for sellers’ trade mark infringements if they promote infringing sales or help sellers to ‘optimise’ their pages, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 12th July 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
“More than 700 years after the Plantagenet’s death, his floral emblem has become the subject of a struggle as lawyers representing two neighbouring Yorkshire brewers – one large, one small – square up in the High Court to argue their claims over the right to use the symbol in what has been dubbed the civil war of the rose.”
The Independent, 6th July 2011
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Breeders of Gloucestershire Old Spots pigs have won a trademark battle against a meat marketing company over the name of one of its products.”
BBC News, 9th June 2011
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“A person threatened another with proceedings for infringement of a registered trade mark within section 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 if he stated or implied that he would bring a claim if the other did not agree to the terms he proposed. The test to be applied was whether a reasonable recipient would understand the statements made to indicate nor merely an assertion of legal rights but an intention to enforce those rights.”
WLR Daily, 24th May 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The use of ‘yellow pages’ in the domain www.transport-yellow-pages.com breached trade mark regulations, a court has ruled. A person finding the website in the UK could think it belonged to Yell, the England and Wales Patent County Court said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 14th April 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
“Rulings by Community trade mark courts should in most cases apply across the EU and not just in the country in which they were made, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 13th April 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024