Organisation: Puma

In <i>Fakta A/S v Puma AG Rolf Dassler Sport</i>, the Supreme Court has reduced the amount to be paid to Puma as compensation and damages for violation of its 'form strip' trademark. Among other things, the court found that Puma's rightful claim for reasonable compensation under Section 43(1)(1) of the Trademarks Act had to be based on the defendant’s turnover resulting from the sale of the infringing goods.

09 July 2012

The Supreme Court has put an end to the controversy surrounding the interpretation of Article L716-7-1 of the IP Code, which implemented Articles 6 and 8 of the IP Rights Enforcement Directive into French law. Article L716-7-1 introduced a right to information, thereby allowing trademark owners to request an injunction against an infringer to communicate key information to the court.

03 May 2012

In <i>Hipp & Co KG v OHIM</i>, the General Court has upheld a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trademarks BEBA and BEBIO, which both covered baby food. Rather surprisingly, instead of accepting that 'beb' was a reference to 'baby' or '<i>bébé</i>', the court stated that Spanish consumers would associate 'beb' with the Spanish verb '<i>beber</i>' (‘to drink’).

24 April 2012

In <i>Adcock Ingram Intellectual Property (Pty) Ltd v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd</i>, the Supreme Court of Appeal has reconsidered the notion that pharmaceuticals sold on prescription are less likely to be confused because they are dispensed by trained professionals in regulated circumstances. In doing so, the court questioned the relevance of findings in a 1983 leading case, also involving appellant Adcock, in contemporary society.

18 April 2012