Features:
A right royal rout
Lee Curtis reflects on the questions raised by the attempted registration of a high-born brand.
A question of Pride
Support for diversity and inclusion or simply opportunistic “rainbow-washing”? What does the adoption of the rainbow mean for the credibility of an iconic symbol?
Hello, IPO!
What did a group of newly qualified attorneys learn from going behind the scenes in Newport?
IP Inclusive - We’re taking steps to widen our intake
Andrea Brewster needs your help to increase diversity in our profession.
Who owns what?
Kate Swaine defines the scope of employee ownership when it comes to IP.
Harmonisation: New code, new options
Wondering what EU harmonisation means for Italy’s trade mark owners? Paola Gelato breaks down three important changes.
Regulars:
EU filing stats – apology
The accuracy of the table of EUTM applications filed by UK firms published in the May issue of CITMA Review has been queried by a number of members.
Events calendar: June 2020
An important update on our future events programme.
The trade mark 20: June 2020
Lee Curtis believes he's struck lucky.
Insider: June 2020
Our latest news and updates of interest.
Case comments:
Sky launches another attack
A figurative addition didn’t guarantee distinctiveness, reports Jasmine Sihre. B 3 079 387, Sky Ltd v Guangdong Dabanya Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd, EUIPO, 17th March 2020.
Is Monster out of energy?
Its recent opposition certainly missed the mark, writes Emila Petrossian. B 2 399 957, Monster Energy Company v Hollywood Marketing SLU (t/a Monster.travel), EUIPO, 13th March 2020.
Court says no to Nokia
An unusual opinion on pronunciation caught the eye of Rose Smalley. B 3 082 511, Nokia Corporation v Shenzhen Road Zhengtong Trading Co. Ltd, EUIPO, 5th March 2020 .
Going for global
Roshani Muniweera offers the tale of a problematic appeals decision. C-328/18 P, Equivalenza Manufactory SL v EUIPO, CJEU, 4th March 2020.
Low marks for luxury goods decision
Victor Povid questions the conclusions reached by the EUIPO. B 3 079 736, Elena Sivoldaeva v Aditya Vitthal Choksi & Others, EUIPO, 31st January 2020.
No Go for proof of bad faith
Once again the bar was set high, says Sarah De’Ath. O/134/20, Pasta Go (Opposition), UK IPO, 4th March 2020.
Gloomy days for Halloumi
Assessment of collective trade marks should be no different from that of traditional trade marks, notes Désirée Fields. C-766/18, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO, CJEU, 5th March 2020.
Arcade owner wins out
Adeline Weber Bain hails the end of a lengthy saga. C‑155/18 P to C‑158/18 P (Joined), Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v EUIPO, CJEU, 4th March 2020.
Polo gains partial victory
Dale Carter believes too narrow a view was taken. B 2 569 773, The Polo/Lauren Company v Luigi Civile, EUIPO, 12th March 2020.
Game, set and match
Gavin Stenton reflects on a defeat for Dogmatch. B 3 072 863, Match Group v Fönstria AB, EUIPO, 16th March 2020.
Beyond bad taste?
Rose Franckeiss looks forward to future tests of a liberal approach. C-240/18 P, Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO, CJEU, 27th February 2020.
An all-star game?
Sarah Husslein suggests it might have been, had the Applicant taken the offensive. O/110/20, ALL STARS (Opposition), UK IPO, 20th February 2020.
Extend at your own risk
Exercise care when broadening the scope of rights, warns Amelia Skelding. O/136/20, LIPSY COUTURE (Opposition), UK IPO, 4th March 2020.
About a burger
Using practical experience was deemed appropriate, reports Leanne Gulliver. R 772/2019-1, Shape of a candy hamburger (3D mark), EUIPO, 5th March 2020.
Full issue:
CITMA Review issue
Other CITMA Reviews:
CITMA Review June 2020
Read CITMA Review from June 2020
CITMA Review May 2020
Read CITMA Review from May 2020
CITMA Review March 2020
Read CITMA Review from March 2020
CITMA Review February 2020
Read CITMA Review from February 2020