The General Court has confirmed that the purpose or intended use of a product is fundamental in defining a sub-category of goods or services. On the 16th May 2013, the EU General Court annulled a
The General Court has confirmed that the purpose or intended use of a product is fundamental in defining a sub-category of goods or services.
On the 16th May 2013, the EU General Court annulled a decision of an OHIM Board of Appeal rejecting an application to revoke a Community trade mark (CTM) for at least some of the goods protected on the basis of lack of genuine use.
The case confirms that the intended use of a product is imperative when the authorities are devising sub-categories within a broad protected term. An Applicant for Revocation should emphasise this requirement in respect of all unused and heterogeneous goods and services so the trade mark owner is stripped of protection for goods and services that overlap or are in direct conflict with those of interest to the Applicant.
Please see further discussion of the case published on the www.ffw.com website.
On the 16th May 2013, the EU General Court annulled a decision of an OHIM Board of Appeal rejecting an application to revoke a Community trade mark (CTM) for at least some of the goods protected on the basis of lack of genuine use.
The case confirms that the intended use of a product is imperative when the authorities are devising sub-categories within a broad protected term. An Applicant for Revocation should emphasise this requirement in respect of all unused and heterogeneous goods and services so the trade mark owner is stripped of protection for goods and services that overlap or are in direct conflict with those of interest to the Applicant.
Please see further discussion of the case published on the www.ffw.com website.