The most valuable brands in the world for 2017


The Brandirectory published the list of the most valuable brands in the world for 2017. This represents brand evaluation as an intangible asset for the relevant proprietor.

According this rating the first place is for Google (109 billion dollars), followed by Apple (107 billion dollars) and Amazon (106 billion dollars).

More information can be found here.


PayPal v Pandora Music

PayPal launched a lawsuit against Pandora Media in New York regarding Pandora’s new logo which represents the P letter in blue color.

According to PayPal this logo is confusingly similar to the company’s own earlier logo for double P in blue color too. What’s more the company considers that its logo has “achieved significant fame and consumer recognition” and “the similarities between the logos are striking, obvious, and patently unlawful. Just like the PayPal logo, the Pandora logo is a capital P in block style, sans serif, with no counter, in the same deep-blue colour range”.

PayPal backed up its allegations with evidences that some consumers made a mistake when approaching both marks.

Source: WIPR

VAL wine battle – a General Court decision

The General court of the EU ruled in case T-216/16; Vignerons de la Méditerranée v EUIPO where there is an application for the following EU trademark for Class 33:


Against this mark, an opposition was filed grounded on an earlier trademark VIÑA DEL VAL for Class 33 too.

EUIPO upheld the opposition taking into consideration the fact that for English-speaking consumers a likelihood of confusion exists. The reason for this conclusion is that the word VAL has no meaning for these consumers whereas VINA possesses low distinctive character. The figurative elements in the trademark application have only decorative character and can’t contribute for the distinctiveness of the mark applied for as a whole.

Both signs are visually and orally similar which create a possibility for confusion among the consumers.

The Court upheld these conclusions and dismissed additional documents submitted with the aim to prove that VAL word is widespread for wine in the EU. According to the court, this is not acceptable because these materials don’t show well-known facts which is the requirement for such latter pieces of evidence.

Source: Alicante news.

AIG trademark lawsuit in US

17102040447_d4be49424c_b.jpgWIPR reports about a lawsuit initiated by a US insurance agency against the global insurance company American International Group (AIG).

A.I.G Agency is a company from St Louis, Missouri, which has been using an AIG trademark since 1962, which is supported by the relevant pieces of evidence.

On the other hand, American International Group is the owner of later AIG marks in the US.

According to A.I.G Agency, this creates confusions among the consumers due to which the Missouri company insists American International Group to stop using the AIG marks and to pay damages.

More information here.

Brief IP news

briefs_1131. Patents as property rights. For more information here.

2. Managing major projects in a trademark portfolio. For more information here.

3. Intellectual property: The next big thing in business. For more information here.

Information from Intellectual Property Center at the UNWE. More information can be found here

Figurative trademarks and their distinctive character

The General Court ruled in case T‑291/16, Anta (China) Co. Ltd v EUIPO. The case concerns an attempt for registration of the following EU trademark for Classes 18, 25, 28:


EUIPO refused to register this sign based on absolute grounds. The goods for which the mark is applied for are widespread and of ordinary consumption practices due to which consumers don’t pay additional attention when buying them.

The vision of the sign, although not being an ordinary geometrical shape, is not distinctive based on which most of the consumers could perceive it as a decorative element but not as a sign indication trade origin.

Like it or not at all – a General Court decision


The General Court ruled in case T-21/16; Karl Conzelmann GmbH + Co. KG  v EUIPO, where there was an attempt for registration of an EU trademark LIKE IT for Classes 18, 24, 25.

EUIPO refused this application on absolute grounds – lack of distinctive character.

The Court upheld this finding taking into account the fact that the words LIKE IT can be perceived as a request for purchasing the goods applied for. The other meanings of LIKE IT such as “Similar to” or “The same as” don’t contribute in any way to the creation of distinctiveness of the sign as a whole.

Source: Alicante News.