sutton044

Energy drinks and alcoholic drinks might be consumed together, but does that make them similar goods for the purposes of establishing likelihood of confusion in trade mark infringement? This was considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union earlier this month in an appeal involving Red Bull and Asolo . Background On 24 September 1997 Asolo filed an application for registration of a European Union trade mark for the word sign ‘FLÜGEL’ [translates to 'wing' in English] in class 32 (Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for the preparation of drinks) and class 33 (Alcoholic drinks except beers).  On 5 December 2011, Red Bull filed an application for a declaration of invalidity based on two earlier marks: 'VERLEIHT FLÜGEL'  [gives wings] , and 'RED BULL VERLEIHT FLÜÜÜGEL' registered for ‘energy drinks’ in class 32, in Austria. Red Bull successfully contested the mark-...

Take a tour of the IP blogosphere with IPKat! Highlights this week include a series of articles on the impact of brexit on the patent system, a commentary on whether blockchain can reasonably be used to protect trade secrets and a case of invalid priority in the US.  Trademarks The Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLP) provides an "Authors' Take" by Daniel R. Bereskin, Q.C. on  Likelihood of Confusion: The Irrational Basis of Trademark Protection . Is the “likelihood of confusion” (“LOC”) test, as in the view of Professor Roger Bone, a "mess"? Likelihood of confusion? Patents Kat friends Matthias Lamping and Hanns Ullrich of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, have recently published two articles on the impact of Brexit on the unitary patent system and the unified patent judiciary: " The European Union’s Patent System after Brexit: Disunited, but Unified?" and " The Unified Patent Court, and How Brexit Br...