Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!

Eleonora Rosati announced the upcoming IPKat webinar on image rights in the age of AI. If you wonder how to protect one’s own image, join our online event hosted by international law firm Bird & Bird LLP on 30 October 2024, from 18:00 to 19:30 CET. For more details and registration, kindly click here.

Jocelyn Bosse notified the IPKat readers of the various IP opportunities and news in the latest Tuesday Wonders post. The People, Plants, and the Law lecture series will begin this week. Moreover, registration for the 147th INTA Annual Meeting 2025 will start in January. The Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam has several events coming up in October. Also, the European Commission’s Public Consultation on Craft and Industrial GIs closes on 10 October. Feel free to read our post for more details, including some recent news on UK plant breeding.

Alessandro Cerri looked into the recent decision of the High Court of England & Wales on trade mark revocation and infringement. The case ([2024] EWHC 2282 (Ch)) concerned the likelihood of confusion between “easylife” marks, owned by the EasyGroup, and “easylive.” Overall, trade mark infringement allegations made by EasyGroup on the similarity basis under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 were rejected. The court reached its decision after assessing the “use in variant form” and “use in services,” also focusing on the assessment of “similarity” and “likelihood of confusion.” Additionally, this Kat considered the court’s latest decisions as supported by the intention to raise the bar for brands featuring common words.

Marcel Pemsel analysed the Advocate General (‘AG’) Priit Pikamäe’s Opinion (case C-93/23) on the jurisdiction of the General Court. In 2016, Neoperl filed an EU trade mark application for a sign. The EUIPO rejected this ’position tactile mark’ application because it was not sufficiently precise to be represented on the register under Art. 4 of Regulation 207/2009. After appealing, the Board of Appeal (BoA) found that the mark lacked distinctiveness instead of reviewing whether the sign was represented in a sufficiently precise manner. After Neoperl’s further appeal to the General Court, the BoA’s decision was annulled. Even though Neoperl did not specifically challenge it, the Court concluded that the BoA should have reviewed the precision of the representation before assessing the distinctive character of the trade mark. The General Court’s decision was further appealed to the Court of Justice of the EU. Overall, the post dives deep into the details of AG Pikamäe Opinion to annul the General Court’s decision and refer the case back to it to adopt a new decision.

Katfriend Aparna Watal (Halfords IP) discussed the decision in Consorzio Per La Tutela Del Formaggio Asiago v Sartori Company [2024] ATMO 140. U.S.-based cheese company Sartori applied to register a logo mark in Australia concerning Asiago-style cheese in class 29. The case shows how Australia takes a different view on GIs compared to what Europe does. Overall, ASIAGO is viewed by Australians as a generic term, not as a name tied to Italy. Due to the current situation in Australia, one of the best ways to secure the protection lies in the ongoing EU-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations.