Delhi HC: Non-Proof of Hearing Notice Dispatch Doesn’t by Itself Show no Personal Hearing Was Given  ||  Delhi High Court: No Construction or Residence Allowed on Yamuna Floodplains, Even For Graveyards  ||  J&K High Court: Right to Speedy Trial Includes Appeals; Closes 46-Year-Old Criminal Case Due to Delay  ||  J&K High Court: Courts Must Not Halt Corruption Probes, Refuses to Quash FIR  ||  J&K&L HC: Matrimonial Remedies May Overlap, But Cruelty Claims Cannot be Selectively Invoked  ||  Delhi High Court: Customs Officials Acting Officially Cannot be Cross-Examined as of Right  ||  J&K&L HC: Second Arbitral Reference is Maintainable if Award is Set Aside Without Deciding Merits  ||  J&K&L HC: Gold Voluntarily Given to Customer is 'Entrustment'; Theft Excluded from Insurance Cover  ||  Delhi HC: Working Mothers Cannot be Forced to Bear Full Childcare Burden While Fathers Evade Duty  ||  J&K&L HC: Arbitral Tribunal Not a “Court”; Giving False Evidence Before it Doesn’t Attract S.195 CrPC    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved