SC: Under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, A Transferee Pendente Lite Cannot Obstruct Execution of a Decree  ||  SC: RTE Act promotes fraternity and equality by children of judges and vendors studying together  ||  MP High Court: Aadhaar and Voter ID Cards are Not Definitive Proof of Date of Birth  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Second Marriage During Subsisting First Marriage Void Unless Custom Permits It  ||  Allahabad HC: Will in Favor of Someone Does Not Affect Compassionate Appointment Based on Dependency  ||  MP High Court: Mere Illness of a Family Member, If Improving, is Not Sufficient for Interim Bail  ||  Bombay HC: ?25K Fine for Flying Kites With Nylon Manjha; Parents Must Ensure Responsible Conduct  ||  Delhi High Court: Home State Must be the First Preference For Claiming Insider IFS Cadre Allocation  ||  SC: Hindu Daughter-In-Law Widowed After Her Father-In-Law’s Death is Entitled to Maintenance  ||  SC: Vendor Remains a Necessary Party in Specific Performance Suits Even After Transferring Property    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved