Archive for the ‘Trademarks by Region’ Category

Baroness Wilcox reveals value of IP rights to UK businesses

Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

In a visit to Nottingham recently the Minister for Intellectual Property, Baroness Wilcox, revealed figures demonstrating that intellectual property rights including registered trade marks are worth an estimated £65 billion a year to UK businesses.

Two reports commissioned by the Intellectual Property Office (the body responsible for the UK regime of copyright, design, trade mark and patent rights), ‘The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the UK Market Sector’ and ‘Film, Television & Radio, Books, Music and Art: UK Investment in Artistic Originals’ highlight that more than ever is being invested in goods and services capable of protection through one or more of trade marks, copyrights, patents and designs. The reports revealed that since 1990 business investment in intellectual property has more than doubled. The IPO intends to begin publishing figures on an annual basis as growth is expected to continue in coming years.

The Minister was in the city to discover how the University of Nottingham and a local low carbon business had benefited from protecting and licensing their intellectual property for commercial development. Speaking at the University’s Technology Demonstrator Wilcox said:

“Businesses who decide not to protect their intellectual assets are taking a huge financial risk because they may lose any rights to their creative ideas. (more…)

Trade mark infringement claim by Yorkshire brewery

Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Lee (t/a Cropton Brewery)

[2011] EWHC 1879 (Ch)

This was a trademark infringement case in which a brewery held a registered trade mark in a stylised white rose which it used on its bottled beer and alleged infringement by another brewery releasing bottled beer with a label containing a white rose.

The two beers in issue produced by the defendant were Yorkshire Bitter and Yorkshire Warrior. Yorskhire Bitter was supplied to a supermarket. The supermarket took responsibility for the label which contained a white rose. The claimant sent a letter to the supermarket alleging trade mark infringement and passing off. The supermarket and the claimant concluded a settlement agreement and the supermarket commissioned a new label.

The label for Yorkshire Warrior was designed by the defendant and replicated the badge of the Yorkshire regiment. The MOD had declined to license the use of the regiment badge for this purpose because of the claimant’s trademark registration. Despite this the defendant continued to use the badge on his label. (more…)

International trademark registration

Monday, April 19th, 2010

Trademark registrations are territory specific, meaning that they will only entitle the owner to the exclusive right to use their brand name in a particular market (such as the United States or the European Union). Often a business will require protection from other parties free-riding or denigrating the reputation of its brand in more than one country. An international trademark registration is one way through which such protection might be obtained.

The concept of an international trademark registration (sometimes called an ‘IR’) can be somewhat misleading. This is because an application for trademark registration through the Madrid system is in fact a series of national trademark registrations, rather than one unitary international trademark registration. This is in contrast to the Community Trade Mark in the European Union, for example, where one single application will result in protection throughout the individual countries of the European Union if successful. (more…)

Trademark holders may buy new domain names

Monday, April 12th, 2010

Nominet, the UK domain name registry, is planning to introduce two letter and one character domain names (e.g. ‘ba’, ‘0’, etc.). This type of domain name has previously been banned from use in relation to ‘.uk’ domain names because of a technical issue. As this issue no longer applies (except in relation to ‘com’, ‘net’ and ‘org’), around 2,000 new domain names can be released into the public domain.

The domains would be made available first to parties with a registered trademark identical to the domain name in question, and then to the general public. Where there are two or more parties with a pre-existing trademark registration that would entitle them to use the domain name, a number of proposals have been considered. For example, one possible solution could be to use a sealed bid auction for domains where there are two or more interested parties of the same business type. (more…)

Trademarks and passing off

Friday, April 9th, 2010

A recent decision in Australia highlights the growing trend in trademark infringement litigation towards defending well-known brands against ‘own brand’ look-alikes being sold in supermarkets.

This practice has been going on for some time and involves producing goods in the same market as very well-known brands, and offering them for sale in very similar packaging to that used by those brands.

Of course, these brands are usually protected by a trademark registration and therefore their owners have the right to prevent the use of indicia associated with their trademark where that use is liable to mislead the public as to believing that the goods or services in question originated from them. (more…)

Google Adwords and trademark infringement

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

Google France SARL and Google Inc v (1) Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (2) Viaticum SA and Luteciel SARL (3) Centre national de recherché en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL and others (2010) Cases C-236/08 – C-238/08

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has now delivered its long-awaited judgment in the Google Adwords trademark infringement case.

The statements of law made by the Court are set out below. In summary, it was found that the provision of the Google Adwords service and any other such services cannot be restrained by trademark owners on the basis that the service constitutes trademark infringement. This was because Google and any other such service providers were merely providing a facility (which may or may not be used to carry out trademark infringement). This was not the same as using a trademark in the sale of goods or services, which must be proven to establish trademark infringement.

It was also noted however that the use made of Google Adwords by an individual could potentially amount to trademark infringement. (more…)

Trademark registration consultation paper

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

The UK Intellectual Property Office has published a consultation paper seeking views on proposed changes to the Trade Mark Rules 2008.  It is concerned that two of the procedures currently provided for by the Trade Mark Rules are no longer in tune with the needs of business.

This is mainly due to the fact that the procedures, which have been available for some time, have had a fairly limited uptake. Bearing in mind that the Intellectual Property Office is in the process of upgrading its information technology infrastructure, it would be possible to obtain cost savings whilst doing so if the facility to carry out these procedures does not have to be built-in. It is hoped that the responses to the consultation paper will aid the Intellectual Property Office in deciding whether or not to remove these facilities. (more…)