Case comments

Our members give you their insight into intellectual property cases. If you are looking for a specific case, you can search our full library. 


Another fine Ness

Beverley Robinson looks into a case where an earlier mark made a difference. O/030/19, (Loch Ness Tonic), UK IPO, 16th January 2019.

23rd Apr 2019 | Case comment

Good vibes gone bad?

David Yeomans wonders whether this mark will ever reach registration. B 3 015 552, Laurent Zentz v Valuestore.it SR, EUIPO, 30th January 2019.

23rd Apr 2019 | Case comment

Earlier dates don't mean earlier rights

Catherine Byfield reports on a failed attempt to beat the clock. T-287/17, Swemac Innovation AB v EUIPO, CJEU, 7th February 2019.

23rd Apr 2019 | Case comment

Ale’s well that ends well

The HO determined HBO’s defence was too weak, explains Dale Carter. O/072/19, Wadworth Game of Stones (Opposition), UK IPO, 5th February 2019.

23rd Apr 2019 | Case comment

Taking back the beats

David Birchall summarises a decision that recognised the sway of similarities. R 990/2018-4, Beats Electronics, LLC v Disashop, SL, EUIPO, 19th December 2018.

23rd Apr 2019 | Case comment

Forever failure

Confusion was concluded, reports Leanne Gulliver. B 2 271 180, Make Up For Ever v Forever 21 Inc, EUIPO, 16th January 2019.

23rd Apr 2019 | Case comment

An exercise in discretion

The IPO saw the sense of allowing late paperwork, says Laura Robyn. O/070/19, Billions London (Opposition), UK IPO, 4th February 2019.

23rd Apr 2019 | Case comment

Could it be coincidence?

Gavin Stenton is interested in whether inspiration was drawn. B 2 994 310, Central Park labels GmbH v Joe & The Juice A/S, EUIPO, 31st January 2019.

23rd Apr 2019 | Case comment
Show more