Search for: "State v. Sieckmann"
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jan 2018, 11:32 pm
One could foresee a return to the case law ante Sieckmann that valued the customers’ viewpoint and stated, for instance, that an olfactory mark described as freshly cut grass will be recognised immediately by anyone, reminding ‘of spring, or summer, manicured lawns or playing fields, or other such pleasant experiences’ (Senta Aromatic [14]). [read post]
7 Apr 2019, 2:24 am
CopyrightThe Kluwer Copyright Blog reports on the decision of the Vienna Higher Regional State Court in case Puls 4 v YouTube, which found that a platform operator is not (as of yet) obliged to monitor the information it transmits or stores or to investigate circumstances which point to unlawful activity. [read post]
28 Dec 2019, 3:22 am
The Hearing Officer sought guidance in the Sieckmann judgment, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) stated that a mark's representation must be 'clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 4:02 am
In Sieckmann the ECJ (on appeal from the German Trademark authority) held that a smell could not be registered either by registering the formulae or depositing a sample. [read post]
4 Jan 2013, 12:42 am
[v] and Cadbury Ltd. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 12:16 am
Since MHCS’ trade mark has been filed prior to the accession of several Member States to the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013, MHCS will not have to establish acquired distinctiveness for these ‘new Member States’ (Art. 209(4)(a) EUTMR). [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 2:14 am
Sieckmann ((C‑273/00, at § 55) and Chartered Institute (C‑307/10, a.k.a. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 10:43 am
The second point relates to the use, by the AG, of typical trade mark tools to achieve the conclusion that copyright only vests in subject-matter that can be identified with sufficient precision and objectivity, in a Sieckmann sense.Although the AG ruled out that this would mean a fixation requirement, that seems to be instead the case. [read post]
13 Nov 2018, 6:40 am
This conclusion is in fact also prompted by the following consideration: if, on the one hand, we accept that solutions like the one of the Dutch Supreme Court in Kecofa v Lancôme, ie that copyright could vest in a perfume, may not be tolerated then, on the other hand, protection could not be denied in a certain work just because it does not belong to one of the categories envisaged by a certain Member State’s list of protectable works. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 10:59 am
: cookie-shaped cushions without trade mark owner's permission | Sieckmann kicks in once again: when is a representation of a sign an acceptable representation for the sake of registration? [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 1:28 am
Specifically, the Court noted that Recital 6 of the Directive states that “member states should also remain free to fix the provisions of procedure surrounding the registration, the revocation and invalidity of trade marks acquired by registration”. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 6:48 am
| Yet another horse – The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 7:59 am
This follows a trend of artificial cases noted in the Shield Mark, Sieckmann, and IP Translator cases. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 2:45 am
Also, signs which cannot be seen -- such as smells -- may be registered in so far as they can be represented in a manner that is clear and precise, as the Court of Justice of the European Union indicated in Case C-273/00 Sieckmann v DPMA. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 2:14 am
Among the highlights of the Study's recommendations are these: * the "genuine use" requirement -- ie should use of an earlier Community trade mark in only one EU Member State count as genuine use of a mark that purportedly covers the entire EU (currently festering before the ECJ in ONEL/OMEL) should be left to the ECJ to decide, but the solution should not be one that takes political boundaries into consideration; * the "graphic representation" requirement… [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 2:31 pm
In theory the precision needed when defining a mark should apply to defining the list of goods or services claimed in the application, but to do so would be applying the ruling of the Court of Justice in Sieckmann out of context. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 9:17 am
In the case of Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2020, 12:08 pm
The UKIPO Hearing Officer was persuaded that without better particularisation (such as a Pantone number) the mark must be held invalid under the general Sieckmann pri [read post]
