header-logo header-logo

16 October 2014
Issue: 7626 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

EU—Trade marks

Sanofi SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) T-493/12, [2014] All ER (D) 161 (Sep)

The applicant sought the annulment of a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks in issue. The General Court of the European Union, in allowing the action, held that, having regard to the products in question, the overall impression produced by the marks at issue ought to have led the board to conclude that there had been a likelihood of confusion between the marks on the part of the relevant public.

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

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW strengthens global insurance practice and Greater China offering with London Partner hire

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon boosts Energy and Utilities practice with appointment of David McEwing

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson adds international construction arbitration partner in London push

NEWS
Law firm trainees are choosing US firms over their UK comparators, according to Chambers’ annual report on UK trainee satisfaction
A former senior judge has warned peers against scrapping juries for fraud and financial crimes, ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this week
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
back-to-top-scroll