Lee Curtis reflects on the questions raised by the attempted registration of a high-born brand.
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?
What did a group of newly qualified attorneys learn from going behind the scenes in Newport?
Andrea Brewster needs your help to increase diversity in our profession.
Kate Swaine defines the scope of employee ownership when it comes to IP.
Wondering what EU harmonisation means for Italy’s trade mark owners? Paola Gelato breaks down three important changes.
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.
An important update on our future events programme.
Lee Curtis believes he's struck lucky.
Our latest news and updates of interest.
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.
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.
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 .
Roshani Muniweera offers the tale of a problematic appeals decision. C-328/18 P, Equivalenza Manufactory SL v EUIPO, CJEU, 4th March 2020.
Victor Povid questions the conclusions reached by the EUIPO. B 3 079 736, Elena Sivoldaeva v Aditya Vitthal Choksi & Others, EUIPO, 31st January 2020.
Once again the bar was set high, says Sarah De’Ath. O/134/20, Pasta Go (Opposition), UK IPO, 4th March 2020.
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.
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.
Dale Carter believes too narrow a view was taken. B 2 569 773, The Polo/Lauren Company v Luigi Civile, EUIPO, 12th March 2020.
Gavin Stenton reflects on a defeat for Dogmatch. B 3 072 863, Match Group v Fönstria AB, EUIPO, 16th March 2020.
Rose Franckeiss looks forward to future tests of a liberal approach. C-240/18 P, Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO, CJEU, 27th February 2020.
Sarah Husslein suggests it might have been, had the Applicant taken the offensive. O/110/20, ALL STARS (Opposition), UK IPO, 20th February 2020.
Exercise care when broadening the scope of rights, warns Amelia Skelding. O/136/20, LIPSY COUTURE (Opposition), UK IPO, 4th March 2020.
Using practical experience was deemed appropriate, reports Leanne Gulliver. R 772/2019-1, Shape of a candy hamburger (3D mark), EUIPO, 5th March 2020.