PARTAGER

It smells !

On January 25, 2006, the Paris Court of Appeal held that perfumes are eligible to copyright protection. For the Judges, perfumes can be identified through their smell architecture, and their unusual combination of essences, performed in very specific combinations, may show the creative work of their author. Several perfume companies sued BELLURE NV for, inter…

Read more
PARTAGER

Cut and Paste, not confusiong !

The OHIM Board of Appeal ruled on March 7, 2006 that the earlier mark and were dissimilar from   The Opposition Division had first retained a likelihood of confusion due to the common device.According to the Board, the size and central position of the word part FSA however dominate the contested trademark. This is in…

Read more
PARTAGER

Will the rabbit move fast enough ?

In the context of an opposition based on QUICKIES and other deriving QUICK trademarks lodged against the CTM for the Opposition Division recognized a risk of confusion by focussing its analysis exclusively on the earlier trademark QUICKIES. The Board of Appeal and the European Court of First Instance confirmed this position.

Read more
PARTAGER

Change of case law as to phonetic similarity

The CJEC ruled on March 23,2006, that a mere phonetic similarity between two signs does not necessarily give rise to a likelihood of confusion. The appellant contested the earlier OHIM decisions which retained that the phonetic similarity was not counterbalancing the visual and intellectual differences between:               /                    ZIRH (Earlier trademark)        (contested application) The new…

Read more
PARTAGER

The “DADVSI CODE”

The “DADVSI CODE” : The mystery of the author’s right bill is to be over Since last winter, French citizens and Internet users have been held breathless by the multiple steps of the DADVSI (meant for Limitations and exceptions to Copyright and neighboring rights in the digital environment) bill project. The bill has been reviewed…

Read more
PARTAGER

10 YEARS OF OHIM PRACTICE…And still differences

After one decade of Community Trademark practice, we have decided to conduct a practical analysis of the main differences between the practice of national Trademark offices of the EU member states, on the one hand, and OHIM habits on the other hand. You will find our interviews with our European associates in each issue of…

Read more

Obelix/ Mobilix

In OBELIX vs./ MOBILIX (October 27,2005), the European Court of First Instance first denied similarity because of the wide formulation “electrotechnical apparatus and instruments, electronics” whereas a specific protection of telecommunication apparatus and instruments could have been easily obtained by the opponent when reciting the list of products. The Court even goes further in absurdness…

Read more
PARTAGER

IT SOUNDS !

OHIM stipulated recently the conditions for filing sound trademark and indicated that an MP3 file may now be joined with the technical conditions providing that its size does not exceed one Megabyte and that it does not allow loops or streaming.   This does not mean that the MP3 file is sufficient. In fact, it…

Read more