IPPT20090908, ECJ, Budvar v Ammersin

Print this page 08-09-2009


In order to assess wheter the designation ‘Bud’ can be classified as a simple and indirect indication of geographical provenance the national court must:
• Ascertain whether that designation, even if it is not in itself a geographical name, is at least capable of informing the consumer that the product comes from a particular place or region of that Member State;
• Ascertain whether the designation has not become generic in that Member State

IPPT20090903, CJEU, Aceites del Sur v Koipe - Carbonell v La Espanola

Print this page 03-09-2009



Later registrations not expressly excluded in the assessment of the opposition
• It cannot be maintained that by not expressly excluding the Community registration in the context of its assessment of the merits of Koipe’s opposition the Court of First Instance did take it into consid-eration and thus established the principle that a later mark may be relied upon against an applica-tion for registration of a mark that has been filed earlier.


IPPT20090702, CJEU, Bavaria cs v Bayerische Brauerbund

Print this page 01-08-2009



Geographical Indications Regulation 1347/2001 valid
• Consideration of the first question asked by the referring court has not disclosed any factor liable to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2001 of 28 June 2001 supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.


IPPT20090716, ECJ, American Clothing v OHIM

Print this page 16-07-2009


IPPT20090716, ECJ, Infopaq v DDF

Print this page 16-07-2009


Reproduction in part
• An extract of a protected work comprising 11 words, is such as to come within the concept of reproduction in part within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, if the elements thus reproduced are the expression of the intellectual creation of their author.


Harmonized work concept

ECJ, FEIA v Cul de Sac

Print this page 02-07-2009


Principal is not the proprietor of the right to the Community design
• Article 14(3) uses the term ‘employer’ to refer to the proprietor of the Community design developed in the context of an employment relationship rather than the much broader term ‘principal’.

Unregistered design
• The right to the Community design vests in the designer, unless it has been assigned by way of contract to his successor in title.


IPPT20090702, ECJ, Davidoff v Bundesfinanzdirektion Sudost

Print this page 02-07-2009


IPPT20090618, ECJ, L'Oreal v Bellure

Print this page 18-06-2009


Unfair advantage
• Does not require that there be a likelihood of confusion or a like-lihood of detriment to the distinctive character or the repute of the mark
• Where the third party seeks to ride on the coat-tails of the mark with a reputation in order to benefit from the power of attraction, the reputation and the prestige of that mark and to exploit, without paying any financial compensation, the marketing effort expended by the proprietor of the mark


IPPT20090611, ECJ, Lindt & Sprungli v Frans Hauswirth

Print this page 11-06-2009



Registration in bad faith
• In order to determine whether the applicant is acting in bad faith within the meaning of Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, the national court must take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case which pertained at the time of filing the application for registration of the sign as a Community trade mark, in particular: