DREAMERSCLUB LTD’S TRADE MARK APPLICATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 136 (8) ◽  
pp. 505-510
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Trade Marks

Abstract H1 Trade marks – Opposition proceedings – Earlier marks – Proof of use – Word marks – Stylised script – Whether used in a form altering distinctive character – Appeal to Appointed Person

Relationship Between Geographical Indications and Trade Marks under Turkish Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ufuk Tekin
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Geographical Indication ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
International Regulations ◽  
First Time

Abstract While geographical indications show geographical origin, trade marks show commercial origin. Therefore, it is possible to say that both geographical indications and trade marks have distinctive character. Indeed, when an application is filed to register a geographical indication as a trade mark, an important question is whether the sign is distinctive enough. In such cases, the distinctive character of these commercial and geographical ‘signs’ can overlap and intersect with each other. In this article, the intersection and relationship between geographical indications and trade marks will be evaluated by considering two different scenarios. In the first one, the trade mark application precedes the registration of the geographical indication, while in the second the application for the geographical indication is filed before the conflicting trade mark. The analysis is carried out by taking into account various provisions of theTurkish Industrial Property Code (IPC), the judicial practice of the Turkish Court of Cassation and international regulations. In this context, the relationship between several absolute grounds for refusal in such a situation and which of these provisions is the most applicable will be examined. In particular, an attempt will be made to explain the role of the absolute ground for refusal regulated in the new Turkish Industrial Property Code for the first time, namely that signs containing or consisting of a geographical indication cannot be registered as a trade mark (Art. 5.1(i)).

Omega Flex Ltd v British Standards Institution

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Intention To Use ◽  
Full Width ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Trade Marks

Abstract H1 Trade marks – Invalidation proceedings – Certification marks - Indications of quality - British Standards kitemark – Application for registration as a ordinary trade mark - Capacity to distinguish - Whether devoid of distinctive character – Relevance of pre-application use - Perception of the relevant public as at date of filing - Whether serving as a badge of origin – Whether descriptive of characteristics of goods or services - Whether distinctiveness acquired through use - Public policy – Deceptive marks - Bad faith –– Lack of intention to use as indicator of origin across full width of specification – Partial invalidity - Reference to CJEU ongoing in other proceedings

TINY REBEL BREWING CO LTD’S TRADE MARK APPLICATIONAppointed Person (Trade Marks)Prof. Ruth Annand: 16 August 2019BL O/482/19; [2019] R.P.C. 25

2019 ◽  
Vol 136 (10) ◽  
pp. 665-678
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Fruit Juices ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Passing Off ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion

Abstract H1 Trade marks – Opposition proceedings – Device marks – TROPICANA – Comparison of goods – Whether beers similar to fruit juices – Comparison of marks – Dominant element – Descriptiveness – Acquired distinctive character – Conceptual differences – Assessment of likelihood of confusion – Passing off – Appeal to Appointed Person

scholarly journals On the scope of protection of renowned trade marks

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-289
Author(s):  
Gustavo Ghidini ◽  
Giovanni Cavani
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Strict Sense ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
The Third ◽  
Similar Sign ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Scope Of Protection

The aim of this paper is to define the scope of protection afforded to ‘marks with reputation’ under EU Directives and Regulations. The authors argue that the protection granted to said marks also in relation to ‘not similar’ goods requires that, having regard to all the circumstances of the specific case, the consumer could be induced to reasonably suppose that the trade mark owner is somehow (industrially or commercially) connected with the circulation of products bearing an identical or confusingly similar sign. If this possibility cannot be assessed, it should be denied that the use of that sign either brings an unfair advantage to the third party user, or is detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the renowned trade mark. In sum, the thesis here submitted states that the protection afforded to renowned trade marks, even ‘extra moenia’ (ie beyond the risk of confusion in a strict sense between the products), anyway presupposes that a misleading message is conveyed to the consumer, inducing her/him to ‘transfer’ the reputation of the latter's products to those of the third party user's products, with the effect of altering the consumer's purchasing choices.

Four Dimensions of Diamond T: Combination Trade Marks of Colours And Shapes

2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 583
Author(s):  
Michael McGowan
Keyword(s):  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Fourth Dimension ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Four Dimensions ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
Dimensional Shape ◽  
Three Dimensional Shape

This article examines the relatively new fields of colour and shape trade marks. It was initially feared by some academics that the new marks would encroach on the realms of patent and copyright.  However, the traditional requirements of trade mark law, such as functionality and descriptiveness, have meant that trade marks in colour and shape are extremely hard to acquire if they do not have factual distinctiveness. As colour and shape trade marks have no special restrictions, it is proposed that the combination trade mark theory and analysis from the Diamond T case should be used as a way to make them more accessible. The combination analysis can be easily applied because every product has a three dimensional shape and a fourth dimension of colour.

FITNESS LEISURE LTD’S TRADE MARK APPLICATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 136 (10) ◽  
pp. 605-617
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion

Abstract H1 Trade marks – Opposition proceedings – Procedure – Failure to consider all grounds advanced by the opponent – Earlier marks – Assessment of likelihood of confusion – Appeal to Appointed Person

Assessing Likelihood of Confusion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilanah Fhima ◽  
Dev S. Gangjee
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
The Public ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
Essential Function ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

The likelihood of confusion test is inextricably linked to the principal justification for trade mark protection. If the essential function of a trade mark is to reliably indicate the commercial origin of a product in the marketplace, an action to prevent confusion amongst consumers, thereby impeding this origin indicating ability, is a necessary corollary. The language of Article 5(1)(b) (relative grounds) and Article 10(2)(b) (infringement) of the Trade Marks Directive 2015 (TMD 2015) indicates that the proprietor has the right to prevent a junior user from registering or using a mark where ‘because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark’.

13. Infringement and loss of registration of trade marks

2019 ◽  
pp. 290-319
Author(s):  
Stavroula Karapapa ◽  
Luke McDonagh
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement ◽  
Scope Of Protection

This chapter focuses on trade mark infringement, setting out the rights of a trade mark owner to prevent others from making use of any sign which is the same as or similar to the registered mark in the course of trade. A claimant who brings a trade mark infringement action will have to show two things: that an act of infringement has been committed, and that such conduct falls within the scope of protection afforded to the registered mark. Once these two points have been established, the court will normally find in favour of the claimant unless one or more of the counter-arguments raised by the defendant succeeds. A defendant who is sued for trade mark infringement, besides denying that infringement has been made out or raising one of the statutory defences, will usually try to counterclaim that the mark should be revoked or declared invalid.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document