header-logo header-logo

04 July 2014
Issue: 7613 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Trade marks

Kampol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and designs) T-382/12, [2014] All ER (D) 08 (Jul)

The proceedings concerned the registration of a trade mark, which was opposed on the basis of Art 8(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 (on the Community trade mark). The Court ruled that under Art 8(1)(b) of the Regulation, the mark applied for should not be registered if there existed a likelihood of confusion “on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark was protected”. Further, the assessment of the likelihood of confusion should be taken in relation to the average consumer and the types of goods in question.

 

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 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

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
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
back-to-top-scroll