Cal. HC: WB Government Directed to Finalise Minimum Wage of Tea Plantation Workers Within Six Weeks  ||  Delhi HC: Woman Cannot be Held Liable for Her Lover Committing Suicide Due to Love Failure  ||  All. HC: Medical Report Determining Age of Victim in POCSO Cases to be Submitted to Court Promptly  ||  Concerns About Rise in Low-Quality Law Colleges Raised by Bar Council of India  ||  Appointment of Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers in Tamil Nadu PWD Upheld by Supreme Court  ||  Committee to Examine Issues Relating to Queer Community Constituted by Central Government  ||  Karnataka High Court: Accused can’t be Morally Convicted by Trial Court in Absence of Legal Proof  ||  Supreme Court in Plea for 100% EVM-VVPAT Verification: Human Interference to Create Problems  ||  Bom HC: Person Cannot be Deprived of Right to Sleep by Recording Statements at Unearthly Hours  ||  Supreme Court: Enable E-Filing & Virtual Appearance Facilities At UP District Courts    

Olympus Medical Systems Corp. v. OHIM - (17 Dec 2015)

Olympus’ ‘3D’ mark rejected

Intellectual Property Rights

The General Court of the European Court of Justice dismissed an application by Olympus Medical Systems to register the mark, ‘3D’. The Court concurred with findings at previous proceedings that the mark was a universally accepted abbreviation of the word ‘three-dimensional’, which were highlighted by various aspects of the mark which gave the impression of a three-dimensional space. Figurative elements of the mark were deemed not sufficiently significant to detract from the words 3D. As such, the Olympus’ mark was held to fall within the ambit of Article 7(1) of Regulation 207/2009, which prohibits registration of marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which serve to designate the kind or quality of the goods.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved