header-logo header-logo

11 April 2014
Issue: 7602 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Trade marks

PI-Design AG and other companies v Yoshida Metal Industry Co Ltd C-337/12 P to C-340/12 P, [2014] All ER (D) 286 (Mar)

Pursuant to Art 4 of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94 (on the Community trade mark) (the Regulation), so far as Community trade marks were concerned, a sign representing the shape of a product fell among the signs which might constitute a trade mark provided that it was capable of being represented graphically and capable of distinguishing the products or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. It was also apparent from the case-law of the Court that each of the grounds for refusal of registration listed in Art 7(1) of the Regulation should be interpreted in the light of the public interest underlying that ground. In that context, the Court had had occasion to point out that Art 7(1)(e)(ii) of the Regulation was intended to prevent trade mark law granting an undertaking a monopoly on technical solutions or functional characteristics of a product. Further, the court had also had occasion to make clear that

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