Search for: "Marks v. Goodding"
Results 201 - 220
of 12,110
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jun 2017, 2:49 am
The CA agreed that consumers of these goods were likely to be indifferent towards the marks used, as they would focus on the price and attributes of the goods rather than the marks. [read post]
30 Jul 2020, 1:32 pm
As the General Court had established in T-111/16, Prada v EUIPO, a well-known trade mark (as 'PRADA' and 'BOSS' are) enjoys extended protection, but no protection is available when the latter’s sign fails to establish a link with it (as it was for 'THE RICH PRADA' and hotel services in that case, and 'BOSS SHOT' and the goods mentioned above here). [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 2:49 am
This question arises because according to the referring court, the to be trade marked shape consists of three essential features, two of which are technically necessary and one of which results exclusively from the nature of the goods themselves:the basic rectangular slab shape: results from the nature of the goods (Article 3(1)(e)(i)),the presence, position and depth of the grooves running along the length of the bar: necessary to obtain technical result (Article… [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 5:08 am
Inc. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 3:14 pm
In truth, though, for slogan marks the public’s perception is not the same as for other types of marks and, therefore, assessing their distinctiveness results more difficult.In the light of Audi v OHIM the General Court addressed some typical issues affecting slogan marks. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 8:46 am
United Kingdom From the recent British case in Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v Technosport London Limited it appears that the vigorous enforcement of BMW trade mark rights is a trend that can also be found in other countries. [read post]
5 Jan 2010, 8:08 pm
However, in The Forest Group v. [read post]
24 Sep 2020, 5:52 pm
The decision of Bacardi & Company Limited v Dickinson Distribution Group Pty Ltd [2020] ATMO 117 (1 July 2020) confirms the acceptance of the similarity between goods in classes 32 and 33, and in particular accepts that gin is similar to beer. [read post]
24 Sep 2020, 5:52 pm
The decision of Bacardi & Company Limited v Dickinson Distribution Group Pty Ltd [2020] ATMO 117 (1 July 2020) confirms the acceptance of the similarity between goods in classes 32 and 33, and in particular accepts that gin is similar to beer. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 3:04 am
Kohnstam, Ltd. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2013, 6:21 am
Action Ink, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jan 2013, 3:10 pm
So, David v Goliath, what's the little guy's concern here? [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 6:40 am
Wirecard AG v. [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 2:14 am
What is the meaning of the matter in question, as it appears in the marks and as those marks are used in connection with the goods and services identified in the registrations? [read post]
26 Nov 2007, 2:16 am
Lutz Superdyne, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2019, 10:27 am
by Dennis Crouch VersaTop v. [read post]
30 Aug 2015, 2:33 am
The CJEU’s decision in Colloseum v Levi Strauss (Case C-12/12) provides a good example for such a case. [read post]
7 Sep 2007, 4:11 am
" Allergan, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 10:09 am
Forest Group, Inc. v. [read post]
