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. 


That sinking feeling

Richard May reviews what halted the progress of Titanic Gin. O/315/20, Titanic Gin (Invalidity), UK IPO, 9th June 2020

1st Sep 2020 | Case comment

Seeing scents

Francesco Simone believes an absurd conclusion was averted on appeal. R 1524/2019-2, The Procter & Gamble Company v Trademarks Solution Sp.zo.o. Sp.k., EUIPO, 28th May 2020

1st Sep 2020 | Case comment

Goodbye HelloFruity

Nick Bowie explains why not all elements are created equal. R 119/2020-4, Importaco SA v HelloFresh SE, EUIPO, 3rd June 2020

1st Sep 2020 | Case comment

Geek pique

The Court saw similarities sufficient for potential passing off, reports Peter Collie. O/309/20, AP & Co. Ltd v Yellow Bulldog Ltd, UK IPO, 4th June 2020

1st Sep 2020 | Case comment

A not-so-super effort

Internet-based evidence was one of the weaknesses here, reports Sophie Soeting. O/300/200, SUPER HERO ENERGY (Opposition), UK IPO, 1st June 2020

1st Sep 2020 | Case comment

No case for brand evolution

A mere coincidence of alternating letters was insufficient to find confusion, writes Désirée Fields. O/322/20, EMOLITE (Opposition), UK IPO, 12th June 2020

1st Sep 2020 | Case comment

Absolut grounds for refusal

Gavin Stenton reveals why a cashmere mark was found to be non-distinctive. R 2448/2019-4, MCC v Fourth Board of Appeal, EUIPO 27th May 2020

1st Sep 2020 | Case comment

Merck becomes less murky

Patrick Cantrill sees new clarity around a complicated coexistence. [2020] EWHC 1273 (Ch), Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (& Others), High Court, 20th May 2020

1st Sep 2020 | Case comment
Show more