In OBELIX vs./ MOBILIX (October 27,2005), the European Court of First Instance first denied similarity because of the wide formulation « electrotechnical apparatus and instruments, electronics » whereas a specific protection of telecommunication apparatus and instruments could have been easily obtained by the opponent when reciting the list of products. The Court even goes further in absurdness …
<!–[if !mso]> st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } <![endif]–> The French High Court (Cour de Cassation) ruled on December 13, 2005 (SOFICAR vs./ LE TOURISME MODERNE) that it was necessary to compare the products and services offered on the web site with those claimed under the earlier trademark to decide whether the infringement is constituted or not. The High …
OHIM stipulated recently the conditions for filing sound trademark and indicated that an MP3 file may now be joined with the technical conditions providing that its size does not exceed one Megabyte and that it does not allow loops or streaming. This does not mean that the MP3 file is sufficient. In fact, it is …
