Trademarks – Page 5 – IP Law Watch

Henkel Cleans Out FINISH Trade Marks

Nov 08 2022

It’s all out in the wash: Henkel Australia Pty Ltd (Henkel) has successfully removed two dishwashing tablet trade marks owned by Reckitt Benckiser Finish BV (Reckitt) from the register.

In the recent Federal Court decision RB (Hygiene Home) Australia Pty Ltd v Henkel Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1042, Rofe J simultaneously overturned an interlocutory injunction against Henkel and declared that two trade marks for dishwashing tablets owned by Reckitt should be removed from the register for non-use.

Australian Government Commits to Protecting First Nations Visual Art

Nov 02 2022

“80% of the souvenirs sold in Australia purporting to represent First Nations cultures are in fact imitation products. These inauthentic items have no connection to First Nations peoples and are often cheaply made imports.”

This extraordinary statistic was presented by Ann Sudmalis MP, Chair of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs which tabled the 2018 Report on the impact of inauthentic art and craft in the style of First Nations peoples (Report).

Who Really Owns Your Business’s Trade Mark? Federal Court of Australia Confirms That a Trade Mark Can Be Registered in The Name of a Company’s Sole Director and Shareholder

Oct 28 2022

Ensuring trade marks are registered in the correct name is of critical importance, especially when registration of the trade mark is challenged.

This was amply demonstrated in the recent Federal Court of Australia decision of Watson as Trustee for the Watson Family Trust v Cosmetic Warriors Ltd [2022] FCA 700.

Keep an Eye on Your Mailbox – Appoint a UK Representative for Trade Marks Filed Through WIPO

Oct 05 2022

A direct United Kingdom (UK) trade mark application to the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) contains a requirement to name a UK address for service. In contrast, it has been a standing practice of the UKIPO to process International Trade Mark Registrations via the Madrid Protocol designating the UK without requiring a UK service address. The UKIPO would only require to specify a UK service address in circumstances where objections or oppositions are raised in relation to the International Trade Mark Registrations during prosecution. However, the recent decision in MARCO POLO (O/681/22) has called this UKIPO’s practice into question.

Can Dawgs Free-Ride on Bulls – Interpretation of Unfair Advantage for UK Trade Marks

Sep 19 2022

The UK High Court has rejected an appeal filed by Monster Energy to register its trade mark ‘RED DAWG’. The court deemed that it could take unfair advantage of the famous energy drink brand’s trade mark ‘RED BULL’. The case (Monster Energy Company v Red Bull GmbH [2022] EWHC 2155 (Ch)) was initially held before the UKIPO before Monster Energy’s appeal to the High Court.

Aug 31 2022

Cadbury has proven the adage that perseverance is the key to success as their continued and well-document pursuit over the registration of the colour purple has finally seen success in Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v Cadbury UK Limited [2022] EWHC 1671 (Ch). The UK High Court has partially upheld the Cadbury appeal over UKIPO’s previous 2019 decision. Hopefully, this will bring clarity to businesses wishing to register colour marks instead of creating further ambiguity around the registrability requirements of colour marks and other non-traditional marks.

Swatch v Samsung: App Store Operators are Not Intermediaries and Can be Liable for Trade Mark Infringement

Aug 30 2022

The High Court of Justice of England & Wales has recently held Samsung liable for trade mark infringement for watch faces sold on the Samsung Galaxy App store (“Samsung’s Store”) and infringing Swatch Group’s trade mark rights. The judgement provides useful guidance on intermediary liability specifically regarding app store operators.

The New Digital Frontiers: How IP is Adapting to Virtual Worlds, from NFTs to Virtual Products

Aug 25 2022

Virtual products, the metaverse, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have recently been expanding and receiving considerable attention from investors, the general public; as well as the art world. Within the span of a year, NFT-backed virtual works of art have been reaching new height, from Beeple, Everydays: The First 5000 Days (March 2021 – US$69.3 million) to The Merge (December 2021 – US$91.8 million). Today, the most valuable living artist in history is a virtual work of art author (Pak, author of The Merge).

Lovely Jubbly? Fictional characters are capable of copyright protection in the UK

Jul 21 2022

Considering the UK’s rich history of literature, it may be somewhat surprising to know that there was very little case law discussing whether copyright might subsist in a fictional character. However, on 8 June 2022, the UK courts finally tackled whether a fictional character can be protected under copyright law in Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools The Dining Experience Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1379 (IPEC).

The NFT Collection: The rise of NFTs – Copyright strikes back? (Part 3)

Jul 07 2022

In a recent post, we examined the regulatory landscape of NFTs (see here). In our third of our series on NFTs, we will address the intellectual property concerns often highlighted by NFT critics.

Category:Trademarks