header-logo header-logo

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

ECJ makes its mark

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll