IP Snapshot - August 2009

Bringing you monthly news of key developments in

intellectual property law

TRADE MARKS

American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v

American Clothing Associates, Joined Cases C-202/08 P and C-208/08

P, 16 July 2009

The ECJ has held that the CFI was wrong to deny protection to

the Canadian national emblem of a maple leaf against registration

of the figurative mark for services. The ECJ found that Article 6

of the Paris Convention applied to service marks as well as trade

marks and therefore OHIM had been entitled to refuse registration

of the applicant's mark in relation to the services in class 40

for the same reason that it had refused registration for the goods

in classes 18 and 25. This shows the courts giving a purposive

interpretation of the legislations, that trade marks and service

marks are intended to be treated in the same way, rather than a

strict literal interpretation.

For the full text of the decision, click

here.

Nokia Corporation v Revenue & Customs [2009] EWHC

1903 (Ch), 27 July 2009

Nokia applied for a judicial review of Her Majesty's

Commissioners of Revenue and Customs' ("HMRC")

decision not to continue to detain or suspend the release of a

shipment of mobile phones and accessories, which Nokia believed to

be counterfeit. Its application has been refused.

For the full text of our Law-Now update on this, click

here.

(1) Whirlpool Corporation (2) Whirlpool Properties Inc.

(3) KitchenAid Europa Inc. v Kenwood Limited [2009] EWCA Civ 753,

23 July 2009

The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's decision

that there was no infringement under Article 9(1)(c) of the CTM

Regulation (40/94/EEC, now replaced by 2009/207/EC) as the

"kMix" mixer, although similar to the Claimants'

Community trade mark ("CTM"), was not taking unfair

advantage of or causing detriment to the distinctive character or

repute of the CTM.

For the full text of the decision, click

here.

PATENTS

Generics (UK) Limited v Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd

and another [2009] EWCA Civ 646, 2 July 2009

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from the High

Court's decision that both a patent on Levofloxacin (an anti

microbial pharmaceutical drug) and the supplementary protection

certificate (SPC) based on that patent were valid. The SPC had been

validly granted because Levofloxacin was a new product for the

purposes of the SPC Regulation, which was sufficiently clear and

therefore there was no need to refer questions to the ECJ.

For the full text of the...