header-logo header-logo

ECJ makes its mark

26 February 2009 / Hamish Porter , Louisa Albertini
Issue: 7358 / Categories: Features , Data protection , Competition , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Post Intel, how well protected are well-known trade marks? Hamish Porter & Louisa Albertini report

In Intel v CPM United Kingdom Limited (C-252/07) the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has provided guidance on the ambit of protection for trade marks with a reputation. Under European law, owners of trade marks with a reputation can prevent or invalidate the registration of later trade marks (Arts 4(3) and 4(4)(a) Trade Marks Directive 2008/95/EEC) and take infringement action (Art 5(2)) where the later mark/infringing sign is “identical with, or similar to, an earlier…trade mark…and where the use of the later trade mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark”.

The English Court of Appeal in Intel sought clarification from the ECJ of the interpretation of this provision in a case where computer-chip manufacturer and owner of the well-known Intel mark was seeking to invalidate the Intelmark trade mark registered by CPM for marketing and telemarketing services.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll