Budapest
29 June 2017
Reporter: Mark Dugdale

IP Translator fails to be understood


Efforts at the Court of Justice for the EU (CJEU) to untangle the codification of 2012’s IP Translator judgement are far from over.

Two cases currently with or recently ruled upon at the CJEU, Cactus (C‑501/15 P) and Brandconcern (C‑577/14 P), appear to have interpreted the IP Translator judgement differently than was intended, sparking some uncertainty for trademark owners.

Following the IP Translator case and its codification in the EU trademark legislative reform package, applicants must file in specific goods and services, indicating with sufficient clarity and precision what they aim to protect.

The new Article 28(8) of the EU Trademark Regulation allowed a period of six months for trademark owners to add new products/services to their EU trademarks filed before 22 June 2012.

Cactus and Brandconcern, however, have indicated that IP Translator does not apply to trademarks that had been registered before the date of the judgement.

According to Sarka Petivlasova, senior associate at Hogan Lovells, the CJEU’s February ruling in Brandconcern indicated that IP Translator has no retroactive effect, meaning that trademarks registered before 21 June 2012 cannot be amended.

The CJEU also seemed to suggest that EU trademarks can protect goods and services outside of the literal meaning of the included class headings.

Cactus, while still under consideration, has received a preliminary opinion from the advocate general, who went one step further and said EU trademarks could potentially cover all goods and services that fall within the class concerned.

As the advocate general noted in Cactus: “Consequently, Brandconcern does not constitute an authority validating [the EU Intellectual Property Office’s] approach … in relation to the assumption that a trademark registered before the cut-off date of 21 June 2012 can at most afford protection to the goods or services mentioned in the relevant alphabetical list.”

“By the same token, Brandconcern should not be read as precluding, from the outset, that protection afforded by trademarks registered before the judgement in IP Translator was given could extend beyond the goods and services referred to in the alphabetical list of a given class.”

Petivlasova added: “It remains to be seen whether the advocate general’s opinion in Cactus will be followed.”

More trademarks news
The latest news from IPPro The Internet
Join Our Newsletter

Sign up today and never
miss the latest news or an issue again

Subscribe now
Man guilty of trafficking $2.5 million in counterfeits
28 September 2017 | New York | Reporter: Barney Dixon
A New York man confesses to planning the distribution of more than $2.5 million of counterfeit UGG boots
Unitary trademark should be pursued in the EU
20 September 2017 | Prague | Reporter: Theo Andrew
A unitary trademark, similar to proposals for a unitary patent, should be pursued in the EU, according to Gregor Vos, partner at Brinkhof
Kroger and Lidl drop home brands lawsuit
13 September 2017 | Virginia | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Supermarket rivals Lidl and Kroger have agreed to dismiss a trademark infringement lawsuit over home brand logos
Kodi hit by trademark trolls
12 September 2017 | London | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Kodi, the company behind the open source IPTV box software of the same name, has been hit by a multitude of so-called ‘trademark trolls’
BBC Worldwide partners with Incopro
11 September 2017 | London | Reporter: Barney Dixon
BBC Worldwide has partnered with brand protection specialist Incopro to tackle the unlicensed online sale of counterfeit merchandise
Facebook a counterfeiter’s haven, finds IPO
07 September 2017 | London | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Counterfeiters see social media as a haven, with Facebook representing the most exposed location for communication about counterfeit goods, according to the UK Intellectual Property Office
Google trademark dispute could go to SCOTUS
30 August 2017 | San Diego | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Two members of the public have asked the US Supreme Court to rule on whether ‘Google’ is a generic term that should not be the subject of a trademark