Archive for the ‘Wpisy w języku angielskim’ Category
C-257/06
Issues:
Protection of health.
Cosmetic products.
Importation.
Communication of information on cosmetic products to the authorities of the State of importation.
Findings:
Article 7 of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, does not preclude a national provision which, in the interests of prompt and appropriate medical treatment in the event of difficulties, requires the importer of cosmetic products to communicate to the Ministry of Health and to the Region the name or the corporate name of the business, its registered office and that of the manufacturing plant, and a full and detailed list of the substances used and the substances contained in those products.
Judgment text:
C-257/06, Roby Profumi.
Published:
—
T-112/06, Inter-IKEA v. OHMI
Issues:
Invalidity proceedings.
Community figurative mark.
Earlier Community and national figurative and word marks.
Relative ground for invalidity.
Trade marks concerned:
IDEA, IKEA.
Findings:
No likelihood of confusion.
Judgment text:
T-112/06, Inter-IKEA v. OHMI.
Published:
—
T-9/05
Issues:
Relative ground for refusal.
Likelihood of confusion.
Trade marks concerned:
AMPLITUDE, AMPLY.
Findings:
—
Judgment text:
T-9/05, Hoya v OHMI.
Published:
—
SRI Int’l v. Internet Security Systems (Fed. Cir. 2008)
Holding:
A scientific paper posted to non-Indexed FTP site is not recognized a prior art (as defined 35 USC 102(b)).
Reasoning:
The court found insufficient evidence to rule on summary judgment. The FTP server was publicly accessible. However, it was uncataloged and would have been difficult to search. Additionally, only one non-SRI person (the conference chair) was shown to have knowledge of the paper on the FTP site.
Wleklinski (dba Comfort Strapp) v. Targus (Fed. Cir. 2007)
Holding:
The Federal Circuit panel agreed that as a matter of law, the doctrine of equivalents does not allow a claimed two-material strap to encompass a strap made of only one material. According to the appellate panel, such a reading would be “the fundamental opposite of the claimed invention”.