A successful indigo battle for O2 in The UK

telephone-booth-768610_960_720.jpgThe UK telecom O2 successfully won an opposition against a UK trademark application for Indigo Blue applied for class 41:

Arranging and conducting of concerts; Services for the showing of video recordings; Services providing entertainment in the form of live musical performances; Showing of prerecorded entertainment; Singing concert services; Song publishing; Song writing services; Songwriting; Sound recording and video entertainment services; Sound recording services; Sound recording studio services; Music concerts; Music entertainment services; Music festival services; Music performance services; Music performances; Music production; Music publishing; Music publishing and music recording services; Music publishing services; Music recording studio services; Musical concert services; Musical concerts by radio; Musical concerts by television; Musical entertainment services; Musical performances; Entertainer services; Entertainer services provided by musicians; Entertainment; Entertainment by means of concerts; Entertainment by means of radio; Entertainment by means of roadshows; Entertainment by means of telephone; Entertainment by means of television; Entertainment in the form of live musical performances (Services providing – );Entertainment in the form of recorded music (Services providing -);Entertainment in the form of television programmes (Services providing -);Entertainment services; Entertainment services for matching users with audio and video recordings; Entertainment services for matching users with computer games; Entertainment services for producing live shows; Entertainment services for sharing audio and video recordings; Entertainment services in the form of concert performances; Entertainment services in the form of musical vocal group performances; Entertainment services performed by a musical group; Entertainment services performed by musicians; Entertainment services performed by singers; Entertainment services provided by a music group; Entertainment services provided by a musical group; Entertainment services provided by a musical vocal group; Entertainment services provided by performing artists; Entertainment services provided by vocalists.

O2 invoked rights over several of its earlier EU trademarks for INDIGO  and INDIGO2 for the same class.

According to the UKIPO, both signs are very similar because of the word INDIGO. The difference between them is the word Blue and the number 2.

From a conceptual point of view, the trademarks are almost identical bearing in mind that for some of the consumers Indigo is a shade of blue. A slight difference can arise only if Indigo is perceived as purple. However, even in that case, both colors are closed.

Taking into account that the first part of the marks is identical, the UKIPO uphold the opposition in its entirety.

This is yet another case which comes to show how important is preliminary trademark clearance search. This search can help a lot in the assessment of the chances one sign has to be registered as a trademark and from another hand to avoid eventual disputes.

It is always advisable to do your homework before to file an application. This will save you time and money.

Source: WIPR.

Advertisement

You can search trademarks by images in Ireland and Slovakia

office-3295561_960_720.jpgEUIPO announced the new improved capabilities of TMView trademark databases, which now give options for image search of trademarks in Ireland and Slovakia. In that way, the number of countries, that allow such access to their local databases for implementation of such searches, become 13.

The option for visual search is a relatively new one but on the other hand quite useful because it gives more ground for better assessment in the case of trademark prior searches.

For more information here.

My product is better than yours – a supermarket war in Ireland

shopping-2613984_960_720.jpgAn interesting lawsuit about comparative advertisement has come to an end in Ireland.  The Irish Supreme Court has ruled in a case between the international supermarket chain Aldi and the local Dunnes Stores.

In 2013, Dunnes launched an advertisement campaign in which they compared products sold by them with such sold by Aldi. Some of the advertisements were:  “Dunnes rich and creamy yogurt, 4 x 125g”, bearing the Dunnes price of €1.99 ($2.21) and another sticker indicating that the product was the same price in an Aldi store.

On top of this, they used slogans such as “lower price guarantee” and “always better value”.

Aldi initiated a lawsuit complaining that the advertisement was misleading because the products at hand were with different characteristics.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Aldi’s allegations for most of the products. The Court noted that comparative advertising was permitted under a 2007 statute which implemented the EU’s Directive 2006/114/EC into Irish law as far as it is not misleading.

For two of the products, however, the Court ruled that the comparison wasn’t fair because their characteristics were different. The first one was a toilet paper which haа different length and the second one was a day cream with a different sun protection factor.

Source: WIPR.

Watches can be copyrightable in Sweden

pexels-photo-280253Hans Eriksson and Petter Larsson (Westerberg & Partners Advokatbyrå Ab) published quite an interesting article for Lexology that concerns a lawsuit for copyright infringement in Sweden.

Back in 2016, a local retailer started to import watches with a minimalistic design that resembled such produced and offered by the well-known Sweden watch manufacturer Daniel Wellington.

A copyright lawsuit followed. The defendant position of the retailer was that the watch design at hand wasn’t original taking into account prior art which clearly showed a variety of other watches on the market that shared similar design characteristics.

Based on this, the first instance court dismissed the copyright infringement claim.

The decision was appealed. The Patent and Market Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that there was a copyright infringement. The reason was that the authors of Daniel Wellington’s watch had made small design choices to create the watch which was sufficient for the watch originality.

Moreover, the court addressed the defendant’s mosaic of prior art components by stating that the fact that a product consists of previously known elements does not rule out copyright protection if it displays originality when considered in its entirety.