Benelux decision raises questions over CTM use

01 March 2010

James Nurton reports on a controversial ruling in Benelux that could affect the value and popularity of Community trade marks

The long-debated question of what constitutes genuine use of a Community trade mark looks set to be addressed by the European Court of Justice, thanks to a controversial decision by the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) in January.

The decision came in an opposition proceeding over an application for a Benelux trade mark for the word Omel. The application was filed by a holding company, Hagelkruis Beheer.

Leno Merken, a trade mark firm that is part of the Knijff group, filed an opposition based on its Community trade mark Onel. The mark had only been used in one EU member state – the Netherlands.

This raised the question whether the CTM had been put to "genuine use" in the Community, as required by Article 15 of the CTM Regulation. Although the Regulation does not stipulate what constitutes genuine use, a joint statement of the European Commission and Council at...



Only subscribers have complete access to Managing IP Magazine, log in or subscribe now.

Alternatively take a free trial, giving you 48-hour access to Managing IP Magazine (some articles and surveys may be excluded).

Subscribe Now

This article is available to subscribers. Please click subscribe to read the rest of the article.

Subscribe

Take a free trial

Please take a free 48-hour trial to gain limited access. Some articles and surveys may be excluded.

Take a free trial


INTA Daily News 2012

Read this year's INTA Daily News - published daily by Managing IP direct from the 134th INTA Annual Meeting in Washington DC

null null null
null null

May 2012

Do you want to be famous?

Famous, well-known, notorious, reputed: everyone wants enhanced protection for their trade marks. But should they, and what does it mean if it is? Emma Barraclough explains



Most read articles

Poll

Will the new post grant and inter partes review proceedings result in more litigators practising pro hac vice before the USPTO?







Supplements