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

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)).

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’.

Trade Marks and Allied Rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dev Gangjee
Keyword(s):  
Brand Image ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Passing Off ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Detrimental Impact ◽  
Scope Of Protection

This chapter outlines the principal features of trade mark protection regimes, drawing primarily on EU and US materials to illustrate the underlying legal issues. It includes an outline of the principal allied rights; namely (i) unfair competition, (ii) passing off, (iii) publicity rights, (iv) geographical indications, and (v) domain names. The overview traces the incremental re-orientation of trade mark regimes in recent decades as they have moved beyond their traditional remit of origin-indication protection in response to claims that brand image needs to be better accommodated. In some cases, the ensuing broader scope of protection can have a detrimental impact on speech and inhibit marketplace competition.

Character merchandising: aspects of legal protection

Legal Studies ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-250
Author(s):  
Andrew McGee ◽  
Sarah Gale ◽  
Gary Scanlan
Keyword(s):  
Present State ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Passing Off ◽  
Legal Control ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Circumstances

The article considers the present state of the law of character merchandising. It questions whether the law relating to character merchandising should be further developed and extended so as to give an individual a comprehensive right to prevent the unauthorised use of aspects of his personality by third parties in connection with the promotion or sale of goods or services. In this context the article rejects the creation of new comprehensive remedies such as a tort of appropriation of personality as being undesirable and impractical. The article maintains that unauthorised acts of personality appropriation or use are already subject to adequate legal control through the law of trade marks and passing off. In this regard the article further suggests that tortious remedies such as defamation, malicious falsehood, and, in restricted circumstances copyright, provide effective sanctions against the unauthorised use of an individual's persona in commercial enterprises in particular and special circumstances. These remedies supplement and complement the principal remedies provided by trade mark protection and passing off.

scholarly journals The interpretation practice of The European Court of Justice while judging the conflict between labelling applied as trademark with elderly right of another person

2010 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 85-90
Author(s):  
Hana Kelblová
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law

The article deals with the verification of the starting hypothesis of complementariness of the law of consumer protection and the law of intellectual property. In order to achieve that goal the author analyzes individual the Czech Trade Marks Act from the standpoint of protection of rights and interests of consumers.The article follows the categorical requirement of a public law rule, the Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits deceiving consumers and establishes that deceiving may also consist in offering products and services unjustified designated by misleading trade mark.The consumer is deceived most frequently when trade marks are used for designation of products and their promotion. The Trade Marks Act may be analyzed in relation to consumer protection first from the standpoint of consumer protection against trade marks misleading someone about the origin and quality of products and services designated by them. Then it is possible to examine the question whether requirements of a designation for being registered as a trade mark are at the same time those attributes of the trade mark which meet the declared intention of the lawmaker, i.e. that the trade mark should be a source of information for the consumer about the origin and quality of the product de­sig­na­ted by it.Especially, the article deals with an interpretation of the conception „Likelihood of Confusion“ as the fundamental conception while judging the conflict with elderly trademarks applying for the re­gi­stra­tion into the list of The Patent Office.A perception of an average consumer is a fundamental factor for a judgement of „Likelihood of Confusion“ as results from the decision practice of The Czech Patent Office, Czech courts and The European Court of Justice. This is proof of the conclusion that rules of the Trademark Law are rules of the Consumer protection Law.

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

38. Relative grounds for refusal

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
The Uk

This chapter focuses on ‘relative grounds’ for denying an application to register a trade mark as set out in section 5 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and Article 8 of the European Union Trade Marks Regulation (EUTMR). It identifies ‘earlier trade marks’ and ‘earlier rights’ before turning to the tests which allow a prior mark to oppose the registration of a subsequent one. First, it reviews the so-called double identity ground, where an identical (later) mark is applied for, in the context of identical products. Second, it considers when likelihood of confusion may be established. Third, it surveys three situations referred to collectively as ‘dilution’, where the later mark may mentally evoke the earlier one in a way that is not confusing, yet still wrongful. It also explains the ‘advertising function’ of a trade mark, along with requirements relating to reputation and ‘due cause’. Finally, the chapter discusses relevant provisions governing unregistered trade marks, copyright, design right, and registered design right in the UK.

28. Tortious protection of intellectual property rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 515-550
Author(s):  
Paul Torremans
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Passing Off ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the ways in which the common law, in the form of the law of tort, creates rights of action. It focuses on the torts of passing off and malicious falsehood, although attention is also paid to the ways in which defamation can assist. These rights are supplementary, and complementary, to the statutory formal rights. In particular, trade mark law and passing off closely overlap, although s. 2(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 preserves passing off as a separate cause of action.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document