Orzecznictwo w zakresie prawa IP i prawa IT

Zagadnienia:
Leki, pharmaceuticals.
Powiązanie ekonomiczne.

Wyrok dotyczył znaków towarowych:
PRAZOL, PREZAL

Tezy i wnioski:
56. In that regard, it should be pointed out that the finding that there was no likelihood of confusion, reached by the Board of Appeal in paragraph 12 of the contested decision, is based on a false premiss, namely that there are significant phonetic differences between the signs which outweigh the low degree of visual similarity between the marks in dispute. That assessment cannot however be accepted, since, as pointed out in paragraphs 42, 49 and 52 above, the signs in dispute are visually and phonetically very similar. The fact that the relevant public consists of end-consumers amongst others, whose level of attention can be considered to be above average, is not sufficient, given the identical nature of the goods concerned and the similarity of the signs in dispute, to rule out the possibility that those consumers might believe that the goods come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings.

Tekst wyroku:
T-95/07, Aventis Pharma SA v. OHIM.

Opublikowany:
—

Tezy i wnioski
Faktura przesłana pocztą elektroniczną nie uprawnia do odliczenia stawki podatku VAT.

Treść wyroku:
I FSK 655/07.

Opublikowany:
—

Zagadnienia:
Relative ground for refusal.
Genuine use of the mark.

Znaki towarowe:

Wnioski:
41. To examine whether an earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in a particular case, an overall assessment must be carried out, taking account of all the relevant factors in the case. That assessment entails a degree of interdependence between the factors taken into account. Thus, the fact that commercial volume achieved under the mark was not high may be offset by the fact that use of the mark was extensive or very regular, and vice versa. In addition, the turnover and the volume of sales of the product under the earlier trade mark cannot be assessed in absolute terms but must be looked at in relation to other relevant factors, such as the volume of business, production or marketing capacity or the degree of diversification of the undertaking using the trade mark and the characteristics of the products or services on the relevant market. As a result, the Court of Justice has stated that use of the earlier mark need not always be quantitatively significant in order to be deemed genuine. Even minimal use can therefore be sufficient to be deemed genuine, provided that it is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or create a share in the market for the goods or services protected by the mark (order in Case C-259/02 La Mer Technology [2004] ECR I-1159, paragraph 21; LA MER, cited in paragraph 32 above, paragraph 57; see, by way of analogy, Ansul, cited in paragraph 21 above, paragraph 39).

Tekst wyroku:
T-131/06, Rykiel création and diffusion de modèles v. OHMI.

Opublikowany:
—

Issues:
Likelihood of confusion.
To annul Decision R 394/2002-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 November 2003 and Decision 405/2002 of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 February 2002 insofar as registration of the Community trade mark sought in Application No 1 042 613 in respect of articles of clothing; boots, shoes and slippers; headgear was refused on the basis of Opposition No B 242 059.

Trade marks concerned:
O orsay.

Findings:
—

Judgment text:
T-39/04, Orsay v. OHMI.

Published:
—

Issues:
Opposition proceedings.
Relative ground for refusal.
Likelihood of confusion.
To annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 – R 909/2002-4 – Orsay (word/figurative mark) / D’ORSAY (word/figurative mark) and Decision 2562/2002 of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28 August 2002 insofar as registration of the Community trade mark sought by application No 1 042 605 was refused for the goods ‘clothing, boots, shoes and slippers; headgear’, on the ground of Opposition No B 242 075.

Trade marks concerned:
Orsay.

Findings:
—

Judgment text:
T-378/04, Orsay v. OHMI.

Published:
—