Busy Hateful Solar Daytime For Les Luxembourgoisies

ECJ cornucopia

Not fifty-fifty the industrious IPKat tin give the sack promise to bargain amongst so many tip-top IP decisions from Grand Duchy of Luxembourg all inward 1 go, so he has position together a piffling list. Today's freshly posted cases on Curia include

* Case C-421/04 Matratzen Concord AG v Hukla Deutschland SA. This is an Advocate General's Opinion on a reference from Barcelona on what is essentially a inquiry of how 1 interprets Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 89/104: "under what atmospheric condition tin give the sack a merchandise grade live on registered inward a Member State where, inward the linguistic communication of about other Member State, it is non distinctive but only denotes or describes the production concerned?" TM enthusiasts volition squall back the CFI's earlier ruling in 2002, on a dispute over a Community merchandise grade application, that MATRATZEN (which way "mattress" inward Germany") was validly registered every bit a merchandise grade inward Spain. Here Advocate General recommends that ECJ dominion that

"Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 89/104 must live on interpreted every bit pregnant that a sign consisting alone of a give-and-take or words which announce the production which it covers or depict the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical root or other characteristics of the production inward the linguistic communication of 1 Member State may non live on registered every bit a merchandise grade inward about other Member State where a important proportion of traders inward together with consumers of that production tin give the sack reasonably live on expected to empathise the pregnant of the give-and-take or words".

keenly awaits the ECJ's ruling (late Spring 2006, he guesses), inward the confident noesis that whatever ruling results volition infuriate either the Spaniards or the Germans (who forthwith contain a sizeable proportion the Castilian population).


* Case T-135/04 GfK AG v OHIM, BUS-Betreuungs- und Unternehmensberatungs GmbH. GfK applied to register every bit a CTM the give-and-take grade ONLINE BUS for statistical together with consultancy services inward Class 35. BUG opposed, citing an before registration of a grade that looked similar this (left) but which was only used similar this (right). The Opposition Division together with the Board of Appeal both upheld the opposition, finding a likelihood of similarity: they every bit good held that the differences betwixt BUG's grade every bit registered together with every bit used had non undermined the distinctive graphic symbol of the grade every bit registered. The CFI agreed.

Right: forthwith this is what the IPKat calls a existent ONLINE BUS

Merpel says, it's foreign to detect a example where the judicature has to expend every bit much liberate energy comparison the opponent's grade every bit registered amongst the grade every bit used every bit it spends inward comparison the opposing parties' signs.



* Case T-346/04 Sadas SA v OHIM, LTJ Diffusion marks a provide to the limelight of 1 of Europe's virtually pop disputes: the battle betwixt the owners of the ARTHUR together with ARTHUR ET FELICIE marks. This time, Sadas applied to register ARTHUR ET FELICIE every bit a give-and-take grade for goods inward Classes 16, 24 together with 25. Sadas opposed, citing before registrations inward Classes 24 together with 25 of its figurative ARTHUR grade (left) together with claiming that at that spot was a likelihood of confusion.

Although in previous litigation before the ECJ Sadas argued successfully that ARTHUR ET FELICIE was non identical to ARTHUR, this fourth dimension circular it could non persuade the CFI that the respective marks were insufficiently similar to take the likelihood of confusion betwixt them.

is certain that at that spot must live on about actually exciting even out that lurks behind this dispute - a identify unit of measurement vendetta, peradventure - together with keeps fuelling it when mutual feel together with fiscal prudence would convey stopped either side getting embroiled long, long ago. Does anyone know the existent story?


* Case T-3/04 Simonds Farsons Cisk plc v OHIM, Spa Monopole intervening. The applicant was actually bespeak for problem here, picking a litigious foe similar Spa Monopole together with and so trying to register this figurative grade (left) inward the teeth of Spa's before registration of KINNIE for much the same goods. Well, the CFI dismissed the applicant's appeal amongst costs, which was ever going to live on the virtually probable result.


* Case C-431/04 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This was a reference from the Bundesgerichtshof on the pregnant of the words “combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product” inside the pregnant of Article 1(b) of Regulation 1768/92 on supplementary protection certificates. Advocate General Leger advises:

"The concept of “combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product” inside the pregnant of Article 1(b) ... must live on interpreted every bit pregnant that it does non forestall the grant of a supplementary protection certificate to a combination of ii substances, 1 of which is a known inwardness amongst pharmacological properties of its ain for a specific therapeutic indication together with the other is necessary for the therapeutic efficacy of the commencement substance, for this indication".

would non dare to transcend comment on this without reading it carefully first, so he invites his readers to offering their thoughts inward the meantime.