NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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