Oxfordshire’ snipers: multimedia marks are best served cold09 gennaio 2019 -
 EUTM application number 017282203 https://youtu.be/WvGurDybTm4.
 According to Article 3(3)(i) EUTMR, multimedia marks represent a new category of trademark (as and from October 2017) consisting in, or extending to, the combination of images and sound.
 According to the Guidelines published by the EUIPO, in the absence of relevant case-law, the general criteria will apply also to the newly introduced marks (hologram, multimedia, motion marks). With the consequence that the mark will be distinctive within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR if it can serve to identify the product and/or services for which registration is applied for as originating from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish that product/service from those of other undertakings. Also, according to the mentioned Guidelines, this distinctiveness will be assessed by reference, first, to the goods or services for which registration is sought and, second, to the relevant public’s perception of that sign, bearing in mind that these marks will not necessarily be perceived by the relevant public in the same way as a word or figurative mark.
 To date, based on the data available on the relevant database, in more than 1 year time, only 20 applications/registrations have been filed before the EUIPO.
 Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR mirrors that of Article 6 quinquies(B)(3) of the Paris Convention 1, which provides for the refusal of trademark applications and for the invalidation of registrations where trademarks are ‘contrary to morality or public order’. See, EUIPO Examination Guidelines. For more details on the ground, http://www.medialaws.eu/la-mafia-se-sienta-a-la-mesa-the-subtle-line-between-outrageous-and-appealing/
 Plus, there is no need to establish that the applicant wants to shock or insult the public concerned; the fact that the EUTM applied for might be seen, as such, to shock or insult is sufficient (decision of 23/10/2009, R 1805/2007-1, PAKI, EU:T:2011:564, § 27, confirmed by judgment of 05/10/2011, T-526/09, PAKI, EU:T:2011:564, § 20 et seq.).
Altri Articoli della categoriaArchivio
- 09 novembre 2018 -Asia Bibi, il silenzio degli indecenti
- 21 settembre 2018 -Le intercettazioni nella giurisprudenza della Corte Europea dei diritti umani
- 19 settembre 2018 -La fuga della High Court of Justice inglese dalla definizione dei confini del diritto all’oblio
- 07 settembre 2018 -Tunisi: pari eredità di donne e uomini. Ed è scontro
- 20 giugno 2018 -The European Digital Single Market Strategy: why we should keep an eye on it