P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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.

Tags : ECJ   OLYMPUS   TRADE MARK   3D  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved