DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Review of EU Trademark

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Review of EU Trademark Annual Review of EU Trademark Law 2018 in Review Tom Scourfield—CMS London, United Kingdom, and Warsaw, Poland with Jordi Güell—Güell IP Barcelona, Spain Martin Viefhues—JONAS Rechtsanwaltgesellschaft mbH Cologne, Germany Anne Marie Verschuur—NautaDutilh Amsterdam, The Netherlands Pier Luigi Roncaglia—Spheriens Florence, Italy Sabine Rigaud and José Monteiro—CMS Francis Lefebvre Avocats Paris, France Ivo Rungg and Hellmut Buchroithner—Binder Grösswang Vienna, Austria Nina Ringen and Jonas Lykke Hartvig Nielsen—Lundgrens Copenhagen, Denmark Johan Norderyd and Christian Sundén—Lindahl Stockholm, Sweden Tanguy de Haan—NautaDutilh Brussels, Belgium Alistair Payne—Acuatus Solicitors Dublin, Ireland Ewa Skrzydło-Tefelska—Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak Warsaw, Poland Sophie Wagner-Chartier—Arendt Luxembourg João Paulo Mioludo—CMS Rui Pena & Arnaut Lisbon, Portugal March–April, 2019 Vol. 109 No. 2 INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION Powerful Network Powerful Brands 655 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5646 Telephone: +1 (212) 642-1733 email: [email protected] Facsimile: +1 (212) 768-7796 OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION DAVID LOSSIGNOL ....................................................................................................................... President AYALA DEUTSCH ................................................................................................................ President-Elect TIKI DARE ........................................................................................................................... Vice President ZEEGER VINK ...................................................................................................................... Vice President JOMARIE FREDERICKS ................................................................................................................ Treasurer DANA NORTHCOTT ...................................................................................................................... Secretary ANNA CARBONI ............................................................................................................................. Counsel ETIENNE SANZ DE ACEDO ..................................................................................... Chief Executive Officer The Trademark Reporter Committee EDITORIAL BOARD EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, CHAIR STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF JESSICA ELLIOTT CARDON WILLARD KNOX Senior Editors GLENN MITCHELL RAFFI V. ZEROUNIAN FABRIZIO MIAZZETTO PAMELA S. CHESTEK BRYAN K. WHEELOCK ELISABETH KASZNAR FEKETE ANDREW J. GRAY IV Senior Staff Editor BEVERLY HARRIS Editors TARA AARON GUY HEATH MARCOS MERCADO BRUCE W. BABER JANET L. HOFFMAN GEORGE W. MOXON II JOLIEN BARBIER BARRY R. HORWITZ AMANDA NYE MARTIN J. BERAN BRUCE ISAACSON BRANDON M. RESS DANIEL R. BERESKIN E. DEBORAH JAY MICHIEL RIJSDIJK SHELDON BURSHTEIN DANIELLE JOHNSON TOM SCOURFIELD ROBERT H. CAMERON SIEGRUN D. KANE JENNIFER S. SICKLER SUJATA CHAUDHRI PETER J. KAROL RINITA SIRCAR JACQUELINE CHORN J. MICHAEL KEYES RANDEL S. SPRINGER THEODORE H. DAVIS JR. REMCO KLÖTERS SARA SULEIMAN ANNE DESMOUSSEAUX JENNIFER KWON PAUL TACKABERRY MEGHAN DILLON SCOTT J. LEBSON IFEYINWA A. UFONDU KAREN L. ELBURG JOHN LINNEKER MARTIN VIEFHUES MATTHEW EZELL NELS T. LIPPERT VERENA VON BOMHARD DÉSIRÉE FIELDS JOEL G. MACMULL JEFFREY A. WAKOLBINGER ALFRED C. FRAWLEY DOUGLAS N. MASTERS RITA WEEKS LESLEY MCCALL GROSSBERG J. DAVID MAYBERRY JOHN L. WELCH MICHAEL HANDLER BRYCE J. MAYNARD JIAN XU NATHAN HARRIS J. THOMAS MCCARTHY JOSEPH S. YANG Advisory Board MILES J. ALEXANDER ROBERT M. KUNSTADT PASQUALE A. RAZZANO WILLIAM M. BORCHARD THEODORE C. MAX SUSAN REISS CLIFFORD W. BROWNING KATHLEEN E. MCCARTHY PIER LUIGI RONCAGLIA LANNING G. BRYER JONATHAN MOSKIN HOWARD J. SHIRE SANDRA EDELMAN VINCENT N. PALLADINO JERRE B. SWANN, SR. ANTHONY L. FLETCHER JOHN B. PEGRAM STEVEN M. WEINBERG ROBERT L. RASKOPF The views expressed in The Trademark Reporter are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect those of INTA. The Trademark Reporter (ISSN 0041-056X) is published electronically six times a year by the International Trademark Association, 655 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5646 USA. INTA, the INTA logo, INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION, POWERFUL NETWORK POWERFUL BRANDS, THE TRADEMARK REPORTER, and inta.org are trademarks, service marks, and/or registered trademarks of the International Trademark Association in the United States and certain other jurisdictions. The Trademark Reporter® Copyright 2019, by the International Trademark Association All Rights Reserved Vol. 109 March–April, 2019 No. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ANNUAL REVIEW OF EU TRADEMARK LAW 2018 in Review I. Introduction ........................................................................... 442 A. About this Review ............................................................ 442 B. Legislative Change and Terminology ............................. 443 C. Organization of Material in this Review ........................ 444 II. Absolute Grounds for Refusal of Registration, and for Cancellation ........................................................................... 444 A. Introductory Comments .................................................. 444 B. Legal Texts ....................................................................... 446 C. Cases ................................................................................ 448 1. EU—CJEU—Is the concept of “shape” within the meaning of the 2008 TM Directive limited solely to three-dimensional properties of a product, or does it also cover other characteristics such as color? ........................................................................... 448 2. EU—CJEU—Does a mark lack distinctive character where there is inherent probability that it will be used as a surface pattern and be “indissociable” from the appearance of the goods concerned? .................................................................. 450 3. EU—CJEU—Is it necessary for a sign to look striking or unusual to enable the relevant public to identify the origin of the goods or services? ......... 453 ii Vol. 109 TMR 4. EU—CJEU—Do differences in treatment of evidence in absolute grounds analysis between a national IPO and the EUIPO offend the principle of the unitary character of an EUTM? ..................... 455 5. EU—CJEU—Was an EUTM relating to a tourist attraction lacking distinctiveness and descriptive as to the geographical origin and other characteristics of the goods and services? ................ 458 6. EU—CJEU—Should a trademark be refused registration where it consists of a geographical name and a term commonly used to designate facilities or sites in which such products are made? ......................................................................... 461 7. UK—Court of Appeal—Can invalidity arising from issues of clarity and precision in the description of a color mark be fixed by characterizing the marks as part of a series? .......... 463 8. Denmark—Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court—Does the use of a term denote a trademark or a product to the average consumer? .................................................................. 466 9. Germany—Federal Patent Court—In the assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign in a “foreign language” is the relevant perception that of the general public or of “expert” circles in trade? .......................................................................... 467 10. Spain—Appeal Court of Barcelona—Had a sign become a descriptive term, used by the majority of manufacturers to refer to a category of products with a common name? ................................ 469 11. Sweden—Patent and Market Court of Appeal— Should consideration of distinctiveness and descriptiveness each be carried out independently of the other, or simultaneously? ....... 471 12. Germany—Federal Supreme Court—To what extent can the issue of distinctiveness depend upon the likely form of use of the sign? .................... 473 Vol. 109 TMR iii III. Conflict with Earlier Rights—Relative Grounds for Refusal of Registration .......................................................... 476 A. Introductory Comments .................................................. 476 B. Legal Texts ....................................................................... 478 C. Cases ................................................................................ 483 1. EU—CJEU—Does the analysis of unfair advantage differ as between luxury goods and common mass-consumed foodstuffs with only a peripheral relationship to the reputation of the earlier mark? .............................................................. 483 2. EU—CJEU—In what circumstances can the CJEU set aside decisions of the General Court on the basis of inadequate reasoning? ........................... 485 3. EU—CJEU—When does an appeal to the CJEU on matters of law amount to an inadmissible challenge to the analysis of facts by the General Court? ......................................................................... 489 4. EU—CJEU—What conditions must the owner of an unregistered name establish in order to oppose a third party’s attempt to register a confusingly similar sign for similar services? .......... 491 5. EU—General Court—When might the conceptual meaning of a “celebrity” name counteract the visual and phonetic similarities with an earlier national trademark? ........................ 494 6. Netherlands—Dutch Supreme Court—Does the analysis of a “generalization step” in the assessment of conceptual similarity amount to a new criterion of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION Merck & Co
    ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION Merck & Co, Inc. v. Merck KGaA Case No. LRO2013-0068 1. The Parties Objector/Complainant is Merck & Co, Inc., United States of America, represented by Reed Smith LLP, United States of America. Applicant/Respondent is Merck KGaA, Germany, represented by Bettinger Schneider Schramm, Germany. 2. The applied-for gTLD string The applied-for gTLD string is <.emerck> (the “Disputed gTLD String”). 3. Procedural History The Legal Rights Objection (“LRO”) was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “WIPO Center”) on March 13, 2013 pursuant to the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure (the “Procedure”). An amended Objection was filed with the WIPO Center on March 27, 2013. In accordance with Article 9 of the Procedure, the WIPO Center has completed the review of the Objection on March 28, 2013 and has determined that the Objection complies with the requirements of the Procedure and the World Intellectual Property Organization Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution for Existing Legal Rights Objections (the “WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution”). In accordance with Article 11(a) of the Procedure, the WIPO Center formally notified Applicant of the Objection, and the proceedings commenced on April 16, 2013. In accordance with Article 11(b) and relevant communication provisions of the Procedure, the Response was timely filed with the WIPO Center on May 15, 2013. The WIPO Center appointed Willem J.H. Leppink as the Panel in this matter on June 14, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the WIPO Center to ensure compliance with Article 13(c) of the Procedure and Paragraph 9 of WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Tort in IPR Rupayan Thakur
    CIPRA Internship for December 2020 Tort in IPR A presentation by Rupayan Thakur Page | 1 Tort in IPR Defining Tort A Tort1 is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability. In the context of torts, injury2 describes the invasion of any legal right, whereas harm describes a loss or detriment in fact that an individual suffers. The primary aims of Tort Law are to provide relief to injured parties for harms caused by others, to impose liability 3 on parties responsible for the harm, and to deter others from committing harmful acts. Torts can shift the burden of loss from the injured party to the party who is at fault or better suited to bear the burden of the loss. Typically, a party seeking redress through tort law will ask for damages4 in the form of monetary compensation. Less common remedies include injunction5 and restitution6. Introduction to Intellectual Property Rights Intellectual Property 7 is the product of the human intellect including creativity concepts, inventions, industrial models, literature etc. Intellectual Property Rights8 (IPR) do not differ from other property rights. They allow their owner to completely benefit from their product which was initially an idea that developed and crystallized. They also entitle them to prevent others from using, dealing or tampering with their products without prior permission from them. They can legally sue them and force them to stop and compensate for any damages. IPR is not a new concept. It is believed that IPR initially started in North Italy9 during the Renaissance10 era.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Losing
    IRAQ: THE CASE FOR LOSING Duncan Kennedy* What follows is the lightly edited text of a lecture delivered at the Brooklyn Law School Symposium on War and Trade on September 22, 2005. I argued that, as of the date of the lecture, the United States had already been defeated in Iraq, predicted an exit strategy likely to be adopted by the Bush administration, and assessed the likely consequences of the defeat for the various participants in the conflict. I ended with a statement that we should embrace our defeat as good for the world at large, however terrible for the Iraqi people. Of course, by the time the text went to the printer, much had changed, and by the time it finds its way into the reader’s hands, yet more will have changed. I am grateful to the Brooklyn Journal of International Law for its willingness to publish the lecture nonetheless, as a contribution to the debate on the war and also to the archive of anti-war speeches that may interest future historians of the domestic conflict over the conflict. ** I. INTRODUCTION his is a talk about the Iraq War and its consequences in world poli- Ttics. It is in the form of a prediction supported by an analysis. The prediction is that the Bush administration will choose as its exit strategy to misrepresent as a victory the defeat of the United States in Iraq, a defeat that has already happened and is irrevocable. I will argue that it is a good thing, on balance, taking into account different effects on different actors, that the United States has been defeated.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Importation (Parallel Trade) in Pharmaceuticals
    IPI CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY FREEDOM Re-importation (Parallel Trade) in Pharmaceuticals By Jacob Arfwedson POLICY REPORT 182 JULY 2004 E S Supporters of parallel trade in pharmaceuticals argue that it lower prices, which is popular with consumers and cash-strapped governments. But in fact parallel trade reduces safety, since it represents an end-run around domestic inspection procedures. More importantly, re-importa- tion undermines intellectual property protection and hence incentives to invest in research and development of IP-based products; which will have ominous implications for consumers in the long-run. Re-importation (or parallel trade as it is known in Europe) occurs when products protected by patent, trademark or copyright are first placed into circulation on one market, then (re-) imported into a second market without the authorization of the original owner of the intellectual property rights (IPRs). Myriad products are re-imported, including automobiles, clothing, perfume and other consumer goods. This paper focuses on re-importation of pharmaceuticals, with a special focus on Europe. How- ever, the paper could not be timelier in the United States, where the House of Representatives voted in late July 2003 on re-importing Canadian prescription drugs into the US. This paper as- sesses whether parallel trade is generally valid, concluding that the net economic effects cannot be established empirically but that there may be significant long run harms to innovation if parallel trade grows indefinitely. IPRs are limited rights conferred by governments over certain products of the intellect (e.g. patents which protect inventions, copyrights which protect expressions of ideas and trademarks which protect brands).
    [Show full text]
  • State of Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement in Armenia
    State of intellectual property protection and enforcement in Armenia 2020 Supported by Implemented by Table of contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 5 About Editors ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 7 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 9 Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1 Contribution of IP system and IP protection to economic growth and development .......................................................................................................................................... 13 1.1. Importance of efficient IP system for economic growth and development ............. 13 1.2. Importance of IP protection for national economies ............................................... 15 Chapter 2. Current state of the IP system in Armenia ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The First Sale Rule in North American and European Trademark Law
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 5-2012 Market Integration and (the Limits of) the First Sale Rule in North American and European Trademark Law Irene Calboli [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Irene Calboli, Market Integration and (the Limits of) the First Sale Rule in North American and European Trademark Law, 51 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1241 (2012). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/362 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARKET INTEGRATION AND (THE LIMITS OF) THE FIRST SALE RULE IN NORTH AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN TRADEMARK LAW Irene Calboli* I. INTRODUCTION The relationship between exclusive trademark rights and the free movement of goods across international borders has historically represented one of the most heated topics of discussion in the international trademark debate.' In a previous work published a few years ago, I analyzed this topic in the context of European trademark law and the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).2 In this Article I * Associate Professor of Law and Director, Intellectual Property and Technology Program, Marquette University Law School; Spring 2011 CIPLIT Visiting Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law. I would like to thank Eric Goldman for the invitation to speak at the "Exhaustion and First Sale in Intellectual Property" conference held at Santa Clara University School of Law on November 5, 2010, and for his insightful suggestions during the research and writing of this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • NYU School of Law Outline: Trademarks, Barton Beebe
    NYU School of Law Outline: Trademarks, Barton Beebe Will Frank (Class of 2011) Fall Semester, 2009 Contents 1 Introduction to Trademark and Unfair Competition Law 3 1.1 Sources and Nature of Rights . 4 1.2 The Nature of Unfair Competition Law . 4 1.3 Purposes of Trademark Law . 4 1.4 The Lanham Act . 5 2 Distinctiveness 6 2.1 The Spectrum of Distinctiveness . 7 2.2 Descriptiveness and Secondary Meaning . 7 2.3 Generic Terms . 8 2.4 Distinctiveness of Nonverbal Identifiers (Logos, Packages, Prod- uct Design, Colors) . 9 2.4.1 Different Tests/Standards? . 9 2.4.2 Expanding the Types of Nonverbal Marks . 9 2.4.3 The Design/Packaging Distinction . 10 2.4.4 Trade Dress Protection After Wal-Mart . 10 2.5 The Edge of Protection: Subject Matter Exclusions? . 12 2.5.1 Exotic Source-Identifiers . 12 2.6 Review . 12 3 Functionality 13 3.1 The Concept . 14 3.2 The Scope of the Doctrine . 15 3.3 The Modern Approach . 15 3.4 Post-TrafFix Devices Applications . 17 4 Use 18 4.1 As a Jurisdictional Prerequisite . 18 4.2 As a Prerequisite for Acquiring Rights . 18 4.2.1 Actual Use . 18 4.2.2 Constructive Use . 19 1 4.3 \Surrogate" Uses . 20 4.3.1 By Affiliates . 20 4.4 The Public as Surrogate . 20 4.5 Loss of Rights . 21 4.5.1 Abandonment Through Non-Use . 21 4.5.2 Abandonment Through Failure to Control Use . 21 5 Registration 22 5.1 The Registration Process . 22 5.1.1 Overview .
    [Show full text]
  • Contributory Trademark Infringement and Notice
    Contributory Trademark Infringement And Notice readiedGood and abysmally. despondent Brainiest Sparky and minimising, unremitted but Hailey Paige denazifies unharmfully her imperils prudence her outjumps Joycean. audaciously Interfertile Orazio or fools forsakes, indiscreetly, his disquiets is Gere untinned? stickles Limelight or password did not take now have registered trademark infringement and contributory notice also known of damage has been caught in civil liability case, whether a chilling the As kind is assets of trademark owners, so trademark owners should be always for management and protection of trademarks. Should include a contributory, but with the majority of this is no knowledge that may never miss out the defendant and contributory trademark infringement notice of. The court denied Napster Inc. This privilege in accordance therewith are not genuine goods or authorises another skin and notice and contributory trademark infringement cases suggest that the products for making it may be relied upon without physical marketplace. Entities it looked at insanly low prices are presenting this infringement and notice sent an injunction: parents are not notice of the. Eleventh Circuit city left across the possibility of loss service providers liable for contributory trademark infringement based on a reason to slim that their services are being used for infringing purposes. In addition, merely using an inline link should always create trademark liability, unless the do something affirmative to medium the impression that reserve are somehow affiliated with or endorsed by peg site to hurricane you are linking. Dmca policy cybernet provides strong of trademark infringement and contributory notice that bright builders had a comprehensive body solutions to match the right and border nature of the infringing.
    [Show full text]
  • Trademark Public Search in India Faqs – Part 2
    Trademark public search in India FAQs – Part 2 Continuing with our article on FAQs on trademark public search in India, we present you second part on FAQs related to trademark search in India. Q – Why trademark public search is important? A – Trademark search is one of the most important steps in trademark registration. A through trademark search can prevent your brand name being infringed and reduces risk of loosing a brand name due to a inadequate trademark search. Q – Can you do trademark search on your own? A – Yes, you can perform trademark public search on your own. You can check our guide on step by stepIPIndia trademark search. Though, it is always advised to take help of external professional service providers for trademark public search as it tend to be more professional and less time consuming. Q – When should you do a TM Search? A – Ideally, trademark public search should be done before filing a application for a trademark registration. You don’t want your application to be rejected by examiner due to lack of or incomplete trademark search. Moreover, search should also be conducted post registration of trademark also. As this step would make sure that your registered trademark is not being used by someone else. Q – How to do trademark search? A – Trademark search can be performed with help of different databases such as IPIndia trademark portal, Ministry of corporate affairs, common law database and Madrid system. You should collect information related to each keyword and formulate a decision matrix to outline chances of your selected trademark getting through examination.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the International Registration of Marks Under the Madrid
    2018 Guide to the International Registration of Marks under the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol Guide to the International the Registration Marks MadridGuide to under the of Agreement Madrid and the Protocol World Intellectual Property Organization © WIPO, 2018 34, chemin des Colombettes Attribution 3.0 IGO license P.O. Box 18 (CC BY 3.0 IGO) CH-1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland The CC license does not apply to non-WIPO content in this publication. Tel: + 41 22 338 91 11 Printed in Switzerland Fax: + 41 22 733 54 28 For contact details of WIPO’s External Offices visit: WIPO Publication No. 455E18 www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/offices/ ISBN 978-92-805-2904-3 GUIDE TO THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION OF MARKS UNDER THE MADRID AGREEMENT AND THE MADRID PROTOCOL (updated 2018) World Intellectual Property Organization GENEVA 2018 ii GUIDE TO THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION OF MARKS Complementary information can be obtained from Legal Division Madrid Registry Brands and Designs Sector World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 34, chemin des Colombettes P.O. Box 18 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland Tel.: (+41) 022 338 9111 Contact us: www.wipo.int/madrid/en/contact/ Internet: www.wipo.int WIPO PUBLICATION No. 455(E) ISBN 978-92-805-2904-3 WIPO 2018 GUIDE TO THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION OF MARKS iii PREFACE This Guide is primarily intended for applicants for, and holders of, international registrations of marks, as well as officials of the competent administrations of the member States of the Madrid Union. It leads them through the various steps of the international registration procedure and explains the essential provisions of the Madrid Agreement, the Madrid Protocol and the Common Regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Mere Allegations of Bad Faith Insufficient Under UDRP, Even in Obvious Cybersquatting Cybersquatting Cases International - Hogan Lovells LLP
    Mere allegations of bad faith insufficient under UDRP, even in obvious Cybersquatting cybersquatting cases International - Hogan Lovells LLP June 10 2013 In a recent decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the panel has held that the mere registration of domain names consisting of obvious misspellings of a trademark, without supporting evidence of bad-faith registration and use, is insufficient to obtain the transfer of the domain names. The complainant, Ticket Software LLC (Connecticut, United States), owned the US trademark TICKETNETWORK (Registration No 2,956,502), registered on May 31 2005 and used in connection with computer software for the purchase and sale of entertainment tickets. The complainant operates a website at ‘www.ticketnetwork.com’, where it has created an online marketplace for sale of entertainment tickets. The respondent was Stephen Troy, a private individual from Florida, United States, who had registered the domain names ‘ricketnetwork.com’, ‘ticketneteork.com’, ‘ticketnetwirk.com’, ‘ticketnetworj.com’ and ‘tivketnetwork.com’ using a proxy service provided by the domain name registrar. The domain names were registered on January 13 2011 and did not point to an active website. The complainant contended that the respondent had engaged in typosquatting, given that the domain names consisted of common typographical errors made by internet users when attempting to reach the complainant's official website, and thus filed a complaint under the UDRP to recover the domain names. To be successful in a complaint under the UDRP, a complainant must satisfy all of the following three requirements: l The domain name is identical, or confusingly similar, to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; l The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and l The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
    [Show full text]
  • Logo Use Guidelines
    Logo Use Guidelines Get the ocial Plone logo in various formats from http://plone.org/logo 1 About the Logo Minimum Size Projects and companies using Plone are encouraged to use the Plone The logo must always be displayed at a size large enough to read both logo on their websites, brochures, packaging, and elsewhere. You may the logo type and the registered trademark. This will vary based on the not use the logo or its likeness as a company logo or for any other resolution of the medium it is being used in - but as a general rule the commercial purpose without permission from the Plone Foundation. logo circle should be no smaller than 1 cm (3/8”) or 36 pixels in height. User groups may use the logo in their materials, as long as they don't make any prot from it and comply with usage guidelines. The Plone logo is a worldwide registered trademark of the Plone Foundation, Clear Space which is responsible for defending against any damaging or confusing It is critical to maintain an open area surrounding the Plone logo so it uses. In general, we want the logo to be used as widely as possible to remains recognizable and does not become lost in other page promote Plone and the Plone community. Derivative versions of the elements. Clear space is dened relative to the size of the logo, not as a Plone logo are generally prohibited, as they dilute Plone's brand iden- border of a set distance (such as saying “1/4 inch”.) tity.
    [Show full text]