What's in a name? Today OHIM becomes EUIPO, CTMs become EUTMs

Get used to it, love it
With the exclusion of certain provisions that will enter into force on 1 October 2017 (eg the one, Article 4, that should get rid of the graphic representation requirement), today Regulation 2015/2424 generally entered into force.

As IPKat readers will remember, this regulation is part of the EU Trade Mark Package adopted last December [here and here]. which also includes a new Trade Mark Directive which Member States have to transpose into their national laws by the 15 January 2019 deadline.

What does it change today?

Among other things:
  • The Office for the Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) is renamed European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) [here's the renewed website];
  • Community trade marks become European Union trade marks;
  • and Regulation 207/2009 becomes Council Regulation 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the *European Union* trade mark.
[Originally published on The IPKat on 23 March 2016]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AG Szpunar advises CJEU not to extend direct liability for trade mark infringement to operators of online marketplaces

Image
Is the operator of an online marketplace (more specifically: a hybrid marketplace, which also provides logistics assistance to third-party sellers through a fulfilment programme) using third-party trade marks itself, in accordance with Article 9(2)   EUTMR , when it displays, on its marketplace, advertisements of independent sellers’ goods that infringe such trade mark rights, which it also delivers to end customers? Is the perception of a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant internet user relevant when undertaking such an assessment? Gigi was also awaiting her delivery ... These are the key issues on which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been requested to provide guidance.  Joined cases  Louboutin/Amazon , C-148/21 and C-184/21  are referrals for a preliminary ruling made in the context of highly similar proceedings pending before, respectively, Luxembourg’s Tribunal d’arrondissement (C-148/21) and Belgium’s Tribunal de l’entrepris...
Read more

The Cofemel decision well beyond the ‘simple’ issue of designs and copyright

Image
G-Star Elwood, a style of jeans that G-Star claims Cofemel to have copied in the background  Portuguese  proceedings As  announced  on The IPKat, last week the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its Cofemel , C-683/17   [not yet available in English] . It ruled that, as far as designs are concerned, no other requirement is mandated for copyright protection to arise under the  InfoSoc Directive , but the sufficient originality of the design at issue. much awaited judgment in  Earlier case law  The ruling is not surprising, considering earlier CJEU case law, most notably the decision in  Flos , C-168/09 . This was a reference from Italy asking about the compatibility with EU law of certain Italian provisions that the Court of First Instance of Milan had deemed potentially incompatible with the principle of cumulation envisaged under EU law. The Italian approach to copyright protection of designs has been traditi...
Read more

Filmspeler, the right of communication to the public, and unlawful streams: a landmark decision

Image
Yesterday this blog  reported  that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued yet another long-awaited judgment, this being the  decision in  Filmspeler , C-527/15 . At the time of writing, the text of the ruling was not yet available. Now that it is and having had a chance to read it, it seems to me that – despite its highly specific factual background (sale of multimedia players enabling free access to audiovisual works protected by copyright without the consent of the rightholders) - Filmspeler is a MAJOR copyright decision. The reason is essentially two-fold: ·         First, because the Court relaxed the notion of what amounts to an ‘indispensable intervention  [the judgment does not even contain a reference to the intervention being ‘indispensable’]  for the sake of the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive . This means – as I also s...
Read more