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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll