Trade Marks

Card Set Information

Author:
ariel911
ID:
145772
Filename:
Trade Marks
Updated:
2012-04-04 19:28:58
Tags:
IP
Folders:

Description:
Year 3 IP Finals
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user ariel911 on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. s.1 - Definition of TM
    Any sign capable of graphical representation…& capable of distinguishing goods/services of one undertaking from those of another
  2. 'any sign'
    Philips Electronics v Remington - a sign is 'anything which conveys information'

    words, words written in a particular way, graphical symbols, shape of goods or packaging, colours or combinations of it
  3. Shield Mark v Joost Kist
    Capable of graphical representation - Do not have to be visual messages
  4. Sieckmann (ECJ)
    For unusual types of mark - must be clear, precise, self-contained, easily intelligible, durable and objective
  5. Eden SARL v OHIM
    smell of ripe strawberries was not a valid graphic representation of trademark.
  6. Eli Lilly
    artificial strawberry flavor in pharmaceutical products ✕ graphic representation
  7. Libertel Groep
    color orange as a trade mark for telecommunications
  8. Heidelberger Bauchemie
    Colour combinations could potentially be registrable if represented graphically by use of internationally recognized method of identification such as the Pantone system
  9. 'capable of distinguishing'
    Philips v Remington - Could the sign can help a consumer to choose between competing products?
  10. Philips v Remington - s.3(1)(b)
    Marks devoid of distinctive characte - Test: Does a reasonably attentive consumer regard the sign as a ™, taking into a/c all the relevant circumstances? (a ™ should function as an indication of origin)
  11. Procter & Gamble
    Marks devoid of distinctive characte - Product appearance - dishwasher tablets - consumer do not see combined color and shape as indicating the origin of goods
  12. Wm Wrigley (Doublemint) - s.3(1)(c)
    Descriptive Signs - application will be refused if at least one of the possible meanings of the mark describes the goods
  13. Windsurfing
    Descriptive Signs - Geographical names barred
  14. Wm Wrigley (Light Green) - s.3(1)(d)
    Customary in trade - application to register light green for confectionery was refused as the mark was widely used by other sweet manufacturers
  15. Absolutely prohibited marks - s.3(3)(a) & s.3(6)
    contrary to public policy, bad faith
  16. Proviso under s.3(1)
    marks which are caught by paras (b), (c) & (d) can still be registered where applicant can show acquired distinctiveness [if after use (before application date), the relevant customers regard it as indicating origin] - Windsurfing Chiemsee : Q of fact
  17. S.5(1)
    ✕ register if it is identical to an earlier mark and is in respect of the identical goods & services

    No need to prove confusion (assumed present for cases of total identity) - Hölterhoff
  18. Diffusion v Sadas Vertbaudet -s.5(1)
    Test : the two marks must be the same in all respects in the eyes of a well-informed, reasonably observant and circumspect consumer
  19. s.5(2)
    ✕ register if identical / similar to an earlier registered mark and is to be registered for goods / services identical with or similar to those which the earlier trade mark is protected
  20. Sabel v Puma
    Confusion test -

    1. Similarity of marks based on overall impression given by the marks bearing in mind their distinctive components

    2. Similarity of goods as per Canon v MGM - ECJ: all relevant factors must be taken into a/c, including the nature of the goods, the end users the method of use, and whether the goods are in competition or are complementary.

    3. Global Appreciation test: CODAS Trade Mark -likelihood of conclusion judged through eyes of average consumer by reference to overall impressions created by the marks. A lesser degree of similarity between the marks may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the goods and vice versa. There is a greater likelihood of confusion where the earlier ™ has a highly distinctive character
  21. s.5(3)
    where the earlier ™ has a reputation in the MS concerned and where the use of the later ™ without due course would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier ™.
  22. s.5(4)
    Other prior rights -

    s.5(4)(a) - owner of unregistered mark - show proof that passing-off action will succeed

    s.5(4)(b) - owner of copyright/design - conflict of IP rights

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview