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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll