Conflict of prior trade name and later mark internationallawoffice.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from internationallawoffice.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Decisions
The Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (HIPO) rejected the application, holding that it was descriptive. It referred to the European Court of Justice s (ECJ s)
Biomild judgment (C-265/00), which held that word combinations which comprise the juxtaposition of several non-distinctive elements remain descriptive and cannot be considered unusual.
The applicant requested a review by the Metropolitan Tribunal, which was rejected. The tribunal agreed with the HIPO in respect of the lack of distinctiveness of the word combination for which the applicant had applied. Moreover, it held that the evidence that the applicant had filed was irrelevant in respect of distinctiveness. It did not prove acquired distinctiveness (ie, intensive use extended in time and space).
Hommage de l OEB à l Office hongrois de la propriété intellectuelle à l occasion de son 125e anniversaire
1er mars 2021
er mars)
à l occasion de son 125
e anniversaire, l Office hongrois de la
propriété intellectuelle (HIPO) a reçu un message de félicitations du Président
de l OEB, M. António Campinos, mais aussi de représentants du
ministère hongrois de l innovation et des technologies, du ministère hongrois
des finances, ainsi que de l Organisation Mondiale de la Propriété
Intellectuelle (OMPI) et de l Office de l Union européenne pour la propriété
intellectuelle (EUIPO).
Dans son allocution, prononcée par visioconférence, M.
Deception and bad faith in trademark applications internationallawoffice.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from internationallawoffice.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Decisions
The Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (HIPO) rejected the application, referring to the European Court of Justice s (ECJ s)
Biomild judgment (C-265/00), which held that the combination of several elements which are not distinctive does not result in a distinctive sign. However, a non-distinctive sign can acquire distinctiveness. In this respect, the HIPO referred to the ECJ s
Chiemsee judgments (C-108/97 and C109/97), which define the conditions for acquiring distinctiveness, and held that the documents filed by the applicant were insufficient to prove the distinctiveness acquired.
The applicant requested a review by the Metropolitan Tribunal, but this was unsuccessful. The tribunal held that the registration of non-Hungarian words must be refused if their Hungarian meaning is not distinctive. This is the standard approach demonstrated in the case law of the Supreme Court (3. Pk. 23.534/2017).