Bitter sweet shapes excluded from trademark protection

On June 22, 2006, the CJEC, retained the lack of distinctive character of the two device trademarksand . In fact, their shape and colours were not different (i) from those commonly used in trade and (ii) from trademarks which might exist in the confectionery sector. The judge also rejected an acquired distinctiveness through use since

Bitter sweet shapes excluded from trademark protection Lire la suite »

Cowhide devices have low distinctiveness for milk products

On June 13, 2006, the Court of First Instance denied a likelihood of confusion between the earlier mark and the application for milk goods. For the judge, all the components of the prior trademark were not sufficient to deny that the cowhide design dominates, by itself, the image of the mark. Considered as visually different,

Cowhide devices have low distinctiveness for milk products Lire la suite »

The Rubiks Cube trademark is fully distinctive

    The creator of the well-known game Rubiks Cube, and his licensing company sued for counterfeiting acts a French company on the basis of their community three-dimensional trademark representing the famous cube. The defendant tried to obtain the cancellation of the mark arguing on one hand that the shape of the game could not

The Rubiks Cube trademark is fully distinctive Lire la suite »

similarity of clothing and eyeglass

On December 2nd, 2005, the Paris Court of Appeal considered that clothing and eyeglasses should be regarded as similar products.For the French Judge, eyeglasses have become fashion and clothes accessories.   The diversification policy of fashion houses reflects this situation. DIOR for instance systematically offers for sell accessories including eyeglasses together with their luxury products

similarity of clothing and eyeglass Lire la suite »

Legitimacy of an action brought by the trademark assignor against the assignee

On January 31, 2006, the French High Court ruled that famous top model and stylist Inès de La Fressange was not grounded to bring a cancellation action for non use against her trademark assignee. For the Judges, she had no legitimate interest in the action for the Judges and her action was contrary to the

Legitimacy of an action brought by the trademark assignor against the assignee Lire la suite »