Nothing more than Empty Words: The Difficulty with Registering Slogans as Trade Marks in the EU
2
High Court Smooths Out Wrinkles in Full Federal Court’s PROTOX Decision
3
Why CMA, What Large Teeth you (Could) Have! Take Care to Heed the ASA and CMA’s Warnings Against Misleading Advertising
4
CJEU Paves the way for Red-Soled Heels to Widen the Scope of Liability of E-Commerce Platforms
5
False Advertising – Large Jury Verdicts in 2022 and the Likely Uptick in False Advertising Suits in 2023 – Part 1
6
The Battle of the Supermarkets Vol. 2 – GINgle Bells, GINgle Bells, GIN All the Way
7
Trademark Applications and Infringements in Germany: The Importance of Potential Revocation and Non-Use
8
The ‘Standard’ of Use Evidence in the EU – Advertising and Promotion Can be Enough to Show Genuine Use of a Service Without That Service Actually Crossing the Pond
9
Old Lady Shows Her Youth With Win in Significant Trade Mark Ruling Concerning NFTs
10
Mind the Gap: Patagonia Sues Gap For Copying Fleece Design
Companies continue to face difficulties in achieving EU trade mark protection for their slogans. In separate recent decisions of the EU General Court, two trade mark applications relating to advertising slogans were rejected on the grounds that the marks lacked the ‘distinctive character’ required to be registerable under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. These two decisions join a long list of case law rejecting similar applications.
The High Court has clarified the test for trade mark infringement, with a unanimous rejection of Allergan Australia’s claims against Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd (Self Care) for the use of “PROTOX” branding on anti-wrinkle skin care products in Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v Allergan Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] HCA 8.
Self Care was successful on all matters on appeal, with the Court finding that Self Care did not use “instant Botox alternative” as a trade mark, “PROTOX” was not deceptively similar to “BOTOX”, and the phrase “instant BOTOX alternative” was not used in breach of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
In the UK, we have seen an increase in regulator activism, and particularly, in relation to advertising misleading consumers. This can be seen in the recent spate of the UK Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) investigations and a whole host of the UK Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) decisions. Companies will need to take extra care as the CMA may get some (very large) new teeth from the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill (“Bill”).
A recent preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the joint cases (C-148/21 and C-184/21) between a luxury fashion brand known for its signature red-soled heels Christian Louboutin and an e-commerce giant Amazon might mark a start of an era of increased accountability of marketplaces in relation to listings of third parties they accommodate on their platforms.
Some of the largest false advertising jury verdicts were recorded in 2022. This, coupled with increased inflationary pressures will likely lead to an uptick in false advertising suits given that such pressures will impact consumer spending habits, leading to increased scrutiny of competitor advertising practices—particularly in the social media space.
It is beGINning to look a lot like a legal disputes saga between supermarkets in the UK. We have recently covered an ongoing dispute between Lidl and Tesco (see here), which relates to an alleged trade mark infringement. This time, Marks & Spencer (M&S) are suing the largest Europe’s discount grocery chain Aldi for copying their registered designs of the light-up Christmas gin bottles. This is the second legal case in recent times brought by M&S against Aldi, with the first one involving the famous Colin the Caterpillar cake, which has since been settled. Notably, the case at hand in relation to gin bottles demonstrates the benefits of registering designs in the UK, especially if such design is unique and has a significant value to the brand, and the brand would like to protect it against any copycats.
Hamburg, Germany – Not only known for its famous seafood and the third largest European seaport for goods and cargo handling1, but also a considerable and noteworthy jurisdiction when it comes to the protection and enforcement of trade mark rights in preliminary proceedings.
The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg found in a recent trade mark dispute in preliminary injunction proceedings (Decision of 29 September 2022 – 5 U 91/21) between the “Deutsche Telekom” (“Claimant”) and the Spanish telecommunication company “Telefónica” and its German subsidiary (together “Defendants”), that the application and use of a “T” consisting of five dots in combination with various Telefónica company symbols (e.g. shown below left and middle) (“Contested Signs”) constitute an infringement of the well-known “T-brand” (shown below right) (EUTM 215194 ; DE 39529531) of Deutsche Telekom (“T-Trade Mark”).
Telefónica company symbol (Contested Sign (1))
Telefónica company symbol (Contested Sign (2))
Deutsche Telekom “T-Trade Mark”
The Court found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the opposing signs, confirmed that the “T”-brand has a reputation within the meaning of Art. 9 (2) lit. c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/1001), and therefore concluded that the defendant’s trade mark infringes the claimant’s trade mark rights resulting in the grant of a preliminary injunction (“PI”).
Does evidence showing booking, advertising and selling services in the EU constitute genuine use if the service actually registered takes place abroad?
This was the question contemplated by a recent decision of the General Court. The case T-768/20 (Standard International Management LLC v EUIPO) addresses the use of trade marks in the EU where the relevant brand operates hotel and leisure facilities outside the jurisdiction.
Juventus FC (affectionately nicknamed the “Old Lady”) has won a noteworthy ruling in its case of trade mark infringement brought against the non-fungible token (“NFT“) producer Blockeras s.r.l (“Blockeras”). The Rome Court of First Instance, on 20 July 2022, ruled that the unauthorised minting, advertising and sale of NFTs1 can infringe the trade mark rights of the relevant owner.
High-end outdoor clothing brand Patagonia Inc is taking on fast fashion retailer Gap for copying its “iconic” fleece jacket design. Patagonia Inc has filed court proceedings in the Federal Court.
In a complaint filed on 22 November 2022, Patagonia alleges that Gap willfully and deliberately copied the fleece design through the creation and sale of its “Mockneck Pullover” jackets, mimicking the flap pocket and rectangular logo of Patagonia’s classic “Snap-T” fleece jackets (shown below).
