©-LAW

In late February, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its long-awaited  [the  Opinion  of Advocate General (AG) Bobek, on which see  here , had been released in July 2019]  judgment in  Constantin Film , C-240/18 P , aka the  Fack Ju Göhte  case concerning the interpretation of the morality absolute ground in EU trade mark (EUTM) law. The decision is both interesting and important for a number of reasons, including trade mark law, the role of freedom of expression, and also ... copyright.  Let’s see, first, what happened and, then, what the implications of the ruling are. Background Can the sign ‘Fack Ju Göhte’, which is also the name of a  successful German comedy  (followed by two sequels) be registered as an EUTM? Things have not proved easy for this application, initially filed in 2015 for a variety of goods and services in various classes under the  previous Regulation   [t...

Did you think that the Rubik's Cube EU trade mark saga was over? Of course not.  Further to the 2016 judgment ( C-30/15 P ) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)  [Katpost  here ]  and the return of the case to the EUIPO, yesterday the General Court (GC) issued yet another ruling ( T-601/17 ). The GC confirmed that the trade mark registration should be cancelled on consideration that it falls within the scope of application of the absolute ground in what is currently Article 7(1)(e)(ii)  EUTMR   (the case was decided under the 1994 Regulation). This provision prevents registration of " signs which consist exclusively of  the shape, or another characteristic, of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result" (the addition of "or another characteristic" occurred in the context of the 2015 reform). Background   In 1996, Seven Toys filed an application to register the 3-D sign above as an EUTM f...

The Louboutin mark Is the Louboutin red sole mark a valid trade mark or not? At last - the moment all IP aficionados were waiting for has come!  The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has just issued its much-awaited judgment in  Louboutin  C-163/16 , ruling that  a  mark consisting of a colour applied to the sole of a shoe is NOT covered by the prohibition of the registration of shapes .  Such a mark does not consist ‘exclusively of the shape’. The question that the  Rechtbank Den Haag referred to the CJEU was the following: Is the notion of ‘shape’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of  [the  2008 Trade Mark Directive , ie the absolute ground for refusal concerning  signs consisting exclusively of "the shape which gives substantial value to the goods" ]   (‘Form’, ‘vorm’ and ‘forme’ in the German, Dutch and French language versions of the Trade Marks Directive respectively) limite...