More On Praktiker

has received roughly other comment on the Praktiker representative (see yesterday's ii blogs on it), this fourth dimension from his learned as well as esteemed friend Udo Pfleghar (Rechtsanwalt, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, formerly of OHIM). Udo writes:

Quickly (and in all probability quite differently from the official translation), the conclusions (and suggested responses) of the Advocate General may survive translated every minute follows:

1. Services provided inwards the context of retail merchandise of goods, which are distinct from the actual sale as well as are identifiable, may survive considered to survive services inside the pregnant of Directive 89/104 for which a service grade may survive registered.

2. The services of a retailer inwards the context of retail merchandise of goods, for which a service grade may survive registered, are to survive clearly specified inwards such a agency inwards accordance amongst the Directive that it is discernable what these services genuinely consist of. Terms such every minute "retail" or "retail services" are non sufficiently detailed to depict the services performed inwards this manner. The registration of a grade for services provided inwards the context of retail merchandise of goods must also acquire into possible to stimulate upwards one's hear to which goods or which types of goods these services relate.

3. Concerning similarity inside the pregnant of Articles 4(1)(b) as well as 5(1)(b) of the Directive, no business tin survive drawn betwixt the services inwards the context of retail merchandise of goods as well as other services carried out inwards connection amongst the sale of goods or the goods sold past times the retailer themselves.

As far every minute indicate iii is concerned, AG Léger argues that the range of protection of such retail service marks would survive best express past times exactly as well as completely defining the services as well as the goods to which the services relate. He hence disagrees amongst the German linguistic communication Federal Patent Court which fears that the protection of such marks could survive also wide if no departure was made betwixt retail services on the 1 paw as well as other services carried out inwards connection amongst the sale of goods (such every minute financing as well as maintenance services) or the goods themselves on the other hand.

As a sideline as well as of express relevance, both the AG as well as the German linguistic communication Federal Patent Court employed the terminology "Wareneinzelhandel" ("retail merchandise of goods") instead of "Einzelhandel", which would but hateful "retail trade". While this would seem to survive a tautology, the ground is in all probability that the Court was trying to avoid the lengthy wording of the application which is for "Einzelhandel mit Bau-, Heimwerker- und Gartenartikeln und anderen Verbrauchsgütern für den Do-it-yourself-Bereich", which translates as: "retail merchandise amongst construction, habitation improvement as well as gardening articles as well as other consumer goods for the do-it-yourself sector". This description of the goods, or rather of the types of goods, at to the lowest degree would seem to satisfy the criteria position downwards past times AG Léger inwards the reply to enquiry 2. However, the applicant would all the same bring to specify what the services genuinely are.

is tremendously grateful to Udo (as he is to Tibor Gold), who bring done much to elucidate the issues facing the ECJ as well as to assist spark full general debate earlier the ECJ gives its concluding ruling after this year.