header-logo header-logo

16 December 2016
Issue: 7727 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

EU

Groupe Go Sport v European Union Intellectual Property Office T-703/15 , [2016] All ER (D) 32 (Dec)

The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Groupe Go Sport (GGS) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) relating to opposition proceedings between Design Go and GGS, concerning the application by the latter for registration of a word sign ‘GO SPORT’ as an EU trade mark. The General Court upheld the decision that GGS had failed to comply with art 60 of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 which required that a notice of appeal had to be filed in writing with EUIPO within two months of the date of notification of the decision and that a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal had to be filed within four months of the date of notification of the decision at issue.

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

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll