Inter Partes Proceedings and the Reform of the Community Trade Mark Implementing Regulation

Legal and practical context. Commission Regulation 1041/2005of 29 June 2005, which amends the Community Trade Mark ImplementingRegulation, entered into force on 25 July 2005. Substantialamendments are brought to inter partes proceedings, that isoppositions and applications in revocation or in invalidity,and appeal procedures. Key points. The rules governing the substantiation of the earlierrights and time limits are now stricter. Also, the new regimeaims at circumscribing the consequences of the rather broadinterpretation which the Court of First Instance gave over thelast two years to the notion of functional continuity betweenthe opposition division and the Boards of Appeal. Practical significance. The authors analyse the new provisionscontained in the Community Trade Mark Implementing Regulationin the light of the latest case law of the Court of First Instance,in order to provide practitioners with a simplified guide.     

Significant 2007 case law on the Community trade mark from the ECJ and the CFI

Legal context: This article looks at the important decisions of 2007 on theCommunity trade mark made by the Luxembourg courts. Key points: The cases discussed concern the application of Council Regulation(EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark(the ‘CTMR’), Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2868/95of 13 December 1995 implementing the CTMR (the ‘CTMIR’),and the Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (‘Directive89/104’). Practical significance: The purpose of this article is to give a quick overview of themost significant trade mark cases decided in 2007 by the Luxembourgcourts. The article has a practical bias and is aimed at readerswho wish to find quickly the key decisions of 2007.     

In Person

Arnaud Folliard-Monguiral is a lawyer in OHIM's Industrial PropertyLitigation Unit. He is the regular contributor, with David Rogers,of the JIPLP annual Community trade mark case law round up.JIPLP managed to catch up with him for long enough to ask afew questions... How did you first become interested in IP? When I was finishing my law studies in the early 90s, IP wasbeing revolutionized     

Significant 2005 case law on the Community trade mark from the Court of First Instance, the European Court of Justice and OHIM

Legal context. Each year the ECJ and CFI gives numerous judgmentsin trade mark matters that are of interest to trade mark practitionersthroughout Europe. This article identifies the most importantcases decided in 2005 relating to the major issues in trademark law. Key points. Issues covered relating to procedural questionsinclude the language regime, the duty of Boards of Appeal togive reasons for their decisions, the right of a party to beheard, etc. Numerous substantive issues are covered, relatingto both absolute and relative grounds. The article also containssome helpful annexes that set out some actual comparisons ofsigns and of goods & services that have been carried outby the Luxembourg courts.     

Coexistence in Community trade mark disputes: conditions and implications

Legal context. A defence based on coexistence has no legal basisin the Trade Mark Directive or in the Community Trade Mark Regulation.Still, a practical approach to Community trade mark conflictsrequires attention to the situation in the marketplace whereconflicting marks may be shown to coexist without any currentconfusion or dilution being reported. Key points. Trade mark coexistence may sometimes be persuasive,the strict requirements being laid down by the Community courts.Through a detailed review of the case-law of the Community courtsand OHIM's Boards of Appeal, this article explains the conditionsfor and the consequences of proving the coexistence of the conflictingmarks in cases based on likelihood of confusion or dilution. Practical significance. Consideration must also be given tothe effects of third parties' neighbouring marks which may diminishan earlier mark's distinctive character. Accordingly, this articlefurther addresses the issue of whether the scope of protectionof a mark may be damaged by the use of later marks in the lightof the ECJ Judgment in the preliminary ruling Case C-145/05Levi Strauss v Casucci Spa.     

Community trade mark case law round-up 2006

Legal Context: This article looks at the important decisions of 2006 on theCommunity Trade Mark made by the Court of First Instance, theEuropean Court of Justice and the OHIM. These cases concernthe application of Council Regulation 40/94 on the CommunityTrade Mark, and also preliminary rulings from the European Courtof Justice on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/104(the Trade Mark Directive). Key Points: The volume of case law relating to Community trade marks, notto mention the variety of official languages in which the lawis interpreted, makes it almost impossible for even the conscientiouspractitioner to keep abreast with developments as they occur. This article provides an overview of the shifts in Communitytrade mark practice, in terms of not only the relatively accessiblesubstantive law but also the far more diffuse areas of procedurallaw and Office practice. In seeking to review and explain these shifts, the authors haveadopted a view of the case law that is functional rather thanphilosophical. In doing so, they lay bare the manner in whichthe institutions that administer and adjudicate Community trademark issues interrelate to one another. Practical Significance: Practitioners can quickly find the important decisions from2006 relating to particular articles of the Council Regulation40/94 on the Community Trade Mark. This article provides an overview of the most significant trademark cases decided in 2006 by the European Courts of Justiceand the OHIM Boards of Appeal. The article enables practitionersto access rapidly the key decisions of 2006. The cases discussed concern the application of Council Regulation40/94 on the Community trade mark (‘CTMR’), CommissionRegulation 2868/95 implementing the CTMR (‘CTMIR’),and Council Directive 89/104 (the ‘Trade Mark Directive’).