Case C-684/21: In this case, the CJEU was referred two questions relating to Article 8(1) of the RCD Regulation in a dispute concerning the validity of a design for a packing device (pictured). The Court ruled that The CJEU ruled that, under Article 8(1) of the Designs Regulation, the assessment of technical function "must be made having regard to all of the objective circumstances relevant to each case, inter alia those dictating the choice of features of appearance, the existence of alternative designs which fulfil the same technical function, and the fact that the proprietor of the design in question also holds design rights for numerous alternative designs, although that latter fact is not decisive for the application of that provision". It also ruled that "in the assessment as to whether the appearance of a product is dictated solely by its technical function, the fact that the design of that product allows for a multicolour appearance cannot be taken into account in the case where that multicolour appearance is not apparent from the registration of the design concerned."
 |  |
Case T-217/22: In the latest case between Lifestyle Equities and Greenwich Polo Club, the General Court upheld a finding of no likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) between these two marks as they were for different goods - luggage in class 18 and clothing in class 25. It said the Board was entitled to find that "even if it could not be ruled out that some consumers choose 'luggage' on the basis of their taste in clothing, there was no aesthetic complementarity between 'luggage' in Class 18 and 'clothing' in Class 25 and that those goods had a different nature and purpose and did not necessarily share the same distribution channels and the same manufacturers".
 |  |
Case T-295/22: The Court upheld a finding of likelihood of confusion for the English-speaking part of the relevant public between the EUTM application shown left and an earlier mark for identical/similar goods and services. It said: "The Board of Appeal was correct in finding that the signs at issue had at least a below-average degree of visual similarity, an average degree of phonetic similarity and, for the English-speaking public, a low degree of conceptual similarity."
Case T-133/22: An EUTM application to register THE FUTURE IS PLANT-BASED for various goods in classes 5, 30 and 32 was correctly rejected as laudatory (judgment in French and German) as "it would be desirable to consume a plant-based, future-oriented diet". Moreover, "the relevant public will not perceive any paradox or pun in the slogan constituting the mark applied for".
Case T-650/21: The court partly reversed the Board of Appeal decision concerning validity of the EUTM pictured. It found that the mark (Casa means "house" in certain languages) was not descriptive for goods such as different packing materials, office requisites or painting articles in Class 16 as the word casa "is not objective and inherent to the nature of the goods at issue in class 16 nor intrinsic and permanent with regard to those goods and does not constitute a description of their intended purpose". However, it was descriptive for other goods and services specified. The judgment also rejected the applicant’s attempt to prove acquired distinctiveness in Italy by extrapolation from Spain and Portugal.
Case T-5/22: The Court upheld a finding of no likelihood of confusion for "footwear" in class 25 between an International Registration designating the EU filed by Brooks Sports and earlier EU and German marks belonging to Puma. It found that the marks were visually dissimilar.
Case T-89/22: The Court annulled a Board of Appeal invalidity decision in a case concerning an RCD for a chair design. It said it could not be inferred from the invalidity application form and statement that the earlier design relied on was invoked in support of lack of novelty (Article 6) as well as lack of individual character (Article 5). The judgment is in French and German.
Case T-617/21: The Court upheld a decision that an RCD for an electrode was not a "component part of a complex product" according to Article 4(2) of the RCD Regulation. The decision was based on "first, the consumable nature of the electrode, secondly, the absence of disassembly and re-assembly of the torch when the electrode is replaced, thirdly, the fact that the torch is regarded as complete without the electrode and, fourthly, the interchangeability of the electrode."
Pictures taken from the Court judgments
Issue 147
Specsavers Legal Director Antony Douglass, who specialises in intellectual property, data protection, marketing and digital strategy, took over as MARQUES Chair during the recent spring meeting in Frankfurt. In this interview, he talks about the role of Chair, his interesting day job and the big challenges brands face today.
More than 150 Council and Team members attended the MARQUES Spring Meeting in Frankfurt on 1 and 2 March
The MARQUES Designs Team will host a webinar on EU design law on Wednesday 3 May from 15.00 to 16.30 CET
On 7 March, UCL-IBIL and MARQUES hosted the latest “Question the Trade Mark Judges” event in London. The Q&A panel discussion covered various timely issues in EU and UK trade mark law and procedure
In their regular update, Petra Herkul, Maria Cecilia Romoleroux and Sonia Santos of the MARQUES Anti-Counterfeiting and Parallel Trade Team summarise recent news from the EUIPO Observatory, EMPACT and the European Commission 
Use of the international trade mark system fell by 6.1% in 2022, but the number of designs included in international applications under the Hague System increased by 11.2%, according to figures published by WIPO European Union Intellectual Property Office (@EU_IPO) _ Twitter.png)
The EUIPO User Group Meeting took place in Alicante during the week of 27 March. This was the 34th meeting since they began in 1998.
The MARQUES blogs include reports on cases and legal developments as well as news from MARQUES Teams. Sign up for notifications so you don’t miss out!