News

In Budejovicky Budvar v OHIM, the CFI upheld an appeal by Budejovicky Budvar from the Boards of Appeal whereby the latter rejected an opposition to Anheuser-Busch's "Bud" applications based on Budejovicky Budvar's "appellation of origin" for "Bud". The opposition was based on Art.8(4) which permits opponents to rely upon non-registered trade mark rights if the laws of Member States permit the prevention of use of the trade mark in that Member State. Budvar relied upon various Member States' law which protected appellations of origin.

Para 3-126 In OBELIX/MOBILIX (Les Editions Albert Rene v OHIM intervening Orange), the ECJ dismissed an appeal from the decision of the CFI that Obelix was not confusingly similar with the mark Mobilix. In the CFI decision, the CFI held that "Obelix" was nt confusingly similar with "Mobilix" as such conveyed a reference to the famous character in the Asterix cartoon strip and thus was conceptually different from Mobilix. The Appellant held that the decision was flawed because it failed to rule on the well-known nature of the "Obelix" mark.

In C-276/05 Wellcome Foundation v Paranova, the ECJ revisited the area of pharmaceutical repackaging. In particular, it considered what information a parallel importer must give to a trade mark proprietor when requested to do so by the proprietor. Furthermore, it confirmed the effect of Boehringer (No.2) by rulling that judicial consideration of the type of repackaging is only relevant for the purpose of determining whether the repackaging is liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark. See the Trade Marks Chapter at para 3-191 and para.

In G2/06 WARF/Stem Cells, the EBA held that a patent for stem cells which necessarily involved the destruction of human embryos was unpatentable as it was contrary to r.23d(c) (now. r.28(c)). The TBA had referred a number of questions concerning the interpretation of r.23d(c) (now r.28(c)) (see para 2-115 in book). In particular, the EBA held

On 27th November 2008, the ECJ handed down its decision in C-252/07 Intel Corp v CPM (UK) Ltd. This concerned a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of the United Kingdom whereby it sought guidance on the meaning of "link" and the proper interpretation of detriment to the distinctive character of a registered mark. The ECJ carried out a tour d'horizon of the relevant law in this area. Importantly, it confirmed that a link was caused where the latter mark "calls to mind" the earlier mark.

On 12th November 2008, the CFI in T-270/06 Lego Juris A/S v OHIM (intervening Mega Brands Inc) confirmed that the Grand Board of Appeal was right to reject the appeal from the Cancellation Division whereby it held that a 3D mark for the Lego brick was invalidly registered as such was contrary to Art.7(1)(e)(ii). For further discussion, see Chapter on Trade Marks.

OHIM has issued a press release celebrating the grant of the 500,000th Community trade mark. Because of the unprecedented success of the CTM system, OHIM has announced that it will be cutting by 40% the cost of acquiring a CTM to Euro 21000.

In Research in Motion v Visto [2007] EWHC 900, on appeal [2008] EWCA 153, the English courts was asked to interpret the meaning of "related actions" in Art.28 Jurisdiction Regulation (generally, see para 14-049 et seq. in book). The action concerned the "Blackberry Wars". The facts were a little complicated but merit understanding. RIM issued proceedings in England for a declaration of non-infringement of Visto's EP(UK) patent in relation to its Blackberry products .

The Commission has proposed that copyright for sound recordings be increased from 50 years to 95 years. It is likely that this will come into force before the end of 2008. See the official press release.

Following the ratification of the London Agreement by France, the London Agreement will now come into force on 1st May 2008. The EPO has now prepared draft regulations to put the London Agreement into force. Croatia, Denmark, Latvia, the Netherlands, France, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Iceland, Monaco and the United Kingdom gave ratified the London Agreement. Sweden, although not a signatory, has implemented its provisions into its national law. For more information, see Patents Chapters update.