Sentences with phrase «trade mark owner»

However there seems no reason to assume that it will not be another useful option as has been the case for trade mark owners for many years.

The latter included orders that had been placed by various trade mark owners but then cancelled, and goods that were rejected as not being manufactured to a sufficient standard.

As sales online continue to increase trade mark owners need certainty and clarity about where they can enforce their rights.

However, as noted in our earlier article, any amendment should also include an exception where trade mark owners can demonstrate legitimate business reasons for their lack of use.

WIPO notes that the evolving domain name registration system is affecting the rights of trade mark owners.

Since then, things seem to have brightened, with favourable decisions for trade mark owners such as Michelin Tyres, Victoria's Secret and 3M.

Nothing contained on this website shall be construed as granting any licence or right to use any Trade Mark displayed on this website without the written permission of the relevant Trade Mark owner.

This will be a particularly contentious issue if the Cartier decision opens the floodgates for other trade mark owners, and the costs of implementing blocking orders escalates greatly.

We have a proven track record of tackling trade mark infringement, and enforcing trade mark owners» rights.

Practitioners and UK trade mark owners are having to adapt to significant changes in the examination procedure for new trade mark applications which came into effect on 1 October 2007.

She is currently the Vice President of The Hong Kong Institute of Trade Marks Practitioners - a body with the aims of representing and encouraging cooperation between trade mark professionals in Hong Kong, and protecting the interests of trade mark owners.

However, once branded goods have been placed on the market in the EEA by the trade mark owner, -LSB-...]

with a trade mark owners» own consent.

Broadly speaking, a trade mark owner is entitled to prevent a third party from using his trade mark without his consent.

At the interlocutory stage in the O2 case, the High Court said that s 10 (6) effectively had to be interpreted to give a trade mark owner a remedy only where the comparative advertising fell outside of the CAD.

You also can not damage their reputation - these are weapons systems - are you 100 % sure that all the ways a player could use them in a game are what the trade mark owners would want to be associated with?

Using a trade mark to describe the product («Written in JavaScript», «Seeking JavaScript developer») is not an infringement and the trade mark owner is under no obligation to, indeed, can not stop this.

Where they are required to defend their trade mark is when it is being used in such a way that there is the risk of confusion that the goods or services could be confused with the trade mark owner's goods or services.

This serves to strike the delicate balance between the interests of the public and the right of the trade mark owner to exclusively use the registered trade mark.

For example, the Abritration Center for International Disputes (ADR.EU) «helps brand and trade mark owners, domain name registrants and registration companies all over the world to resolve conflicts in a fast, efficient and cost - effective fashion.»

This leaves a feeling that you know the internal problems a trade mark owner faces, such as budget restraints, constant audits, advising on filing and defence strategy, gap filling as new markets become of interest, or brand extension when new product ranges or services are introduced under an existing mark, and prioritising work in general.

If there was extra administration, such as form filling or fee paying, it could lead to a huge work load for not only practitioners but also the trade mark owners themselves, and of course the UKIPO.

This can leave the trade mark owner vulnerable to a challenge by a third party to their mark on the basis of non-use and they could actually lose their rights.

This led to clutter on the register, and more uncertainty and cost for trade mark owners, who would have difficulty in clearing marks for use and registration in 28 states, only to have to face expensive litigation against prior marks, where use of those marks in the relevant fields was questionable.

This judgement clearly confirms the availability of blocking orders for trade mark owners, and this will undoubtedly become a useful tool in the armoury of many rights holders, particularly those in the luxury goods sector.

Macfarlanes solicitor, Michael Walmsley, says: «A trade mark owner can not object to use of marks similar to his trade mark in comparative advertisements unless he can show that the use of the mark causes a likelihood of confusion or unfairly takes advantage of or discredits his trade mark.»

A trade mark owner can not stop a rival using an identical or similar sign in a comparative advertisement where the use is not likely to confuse the public, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.

The ECJ said a trade mark owner may prevent the use of a sign similar to his mark only if used: in the course of trade; without the consent of the mark owner; in respect of goods or services identical with, or similar to, those for which the mark is registered; in a way likely to confuse the public.

He has drawn a key distinction between the benefit a potential infringer receives from using a similar sign, and the harm a trade mark owner may suffer.

Even without any economic harm to the trade mark owner, where the only purpose of the use of the lookalike is to exploit the reputation of the market leader in order to benefit and promote the sale of the lookalike that will confer an unfair advantage and amount to trade mark infringement.»

Trade mark owners will find it more difficult to protect their brands from competitors» comparative adverts following a Court of Appeal ruling, commercial firm Wedlake Bell is warning.

«I think one must focus on what is really happening, on actual knowledge and actual, practical control or the right of control by the trade mark owner.

Implied consent can not be inferred from «neutrality» on the part of the trade mark owner, but its silence and / or failure to provide relevant disclosure can mean that the trader will find it difficult, or impossible, to discharge its burden of proof.

Many (probably most) trade mark lawyers think that ought to be the rule... So the public would be surprised to know (and perhaps somewhat resentful of the fact) that the law of the EEA is such that if genuine goods are available outside Europe, much cheaper than they are here, traders can not buy them and import them for sale here, unless the trade mark owner has consented.

Consent can be given expressly, or implied, by the trade mark owner or by another with sufficient authority to give it.

Trade mark owners have the right to stop their use in AdWords when they suggest they are linked to the owner or create confusion about the owner

In Davidoff the European Court of Justice held that relevant and sufficient consent may be express or, in exceptional circumstances, implied where from the facts and circumstances prior to, simultaneous with, or subsequent to the goods being placed on the market outside the European Economic Area (EEA), the trade mark owner has unequivocally demonstrated that he has renounced his right to oppose placing the goods on the market in the EEA.