Case T-487/21: The Court ruled that an EUTM application (pictured) for a "tactile position mark" for goods in class 11 was not a "sign of which an EU trade mark may consist" under Article 4 of the EUTM Regulation. It said that "the tactile impression produced by the sign for which registration is sought does not emerge precisely and completely from the graphic representation of that sign in itself, but, at most, from the accompanying description. Consequently, that description does not specify the graphic representation of that sign within the meaning of the case-law ... but on the contrary may give rise to doubts as to the purpose and scope of that graphic representation in that it attempts to broaden the subject matter of the protection sought" (unofficial translation).

Case T-623/21: In this case, the Court upheld the Board of Appeal decision rejecting Puma's Article 8(5) opposition to the registration of an EUTM for Puma for goods in class 11. The opposition was based on Puma's earlier figurative marks. The Court said: "The Board of Appeal rightly held that there was no link in the mind of the relevant public between the marks at issue. In the absence of the existence of such a link in the mind of the public, the use of the mark applied for ... is not likely to take unfair advantage of or damage the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark."

Case T-553/21: The Board of Appeal correctly found there was genuine use of the EUTM pictured for "Pre-cooked potato croquettes and products based on frozen mashed potato" and that it should not be revoked. The Court said it was common knowledge that deep-frozen potato products were usually marketed in the form of sticks, pucks or wedge shapes. A market study provided by the EUTM application indicated that "frozen potato products in the shape of faces from other manufacturers do not currently exist and have not existed in the past" and the applicant for revocation was not justified in claiming that the smiley face did not differ significantly from the habits of the food sector.

Case T-636/21: The Court upheld a finding of likelihood of confusion between an International Registration designating the EU (pictured) and an earlier Austrian mark EUROLLUBRICANTS for identical/similar goods in class 4. The Court ruled that evidence regarding the market for lubricants, which was submitted for the first time before the Court, was inadmissible.

Case T-18/22: The Court reversed the Board of Appeal, finding there was no likelihood of confusion between an EUTM application (pictured) and the earlier EU word mark Newport for identical services in class 39. Notably, the court found that the signs were visually similar to low degree, phonetically similar to low degree and conceptually different. It also found that the earlier mark had a weak distinctive character and the level of attention of the relevant public was average to high.

Unsubscribe:
You can unsubscribe from this emailing list or change the frequency and type of information you receive from MARQUES at anytime by logging into the MARQUES website and clicking on the Preferences tab in the My Profile section of the My Account page.  Alternatively you can reply to this email with the subject 'NewsChannel - Unsubscribe' to be removed from this mailing list.