EU
November 30, 2020
In the recent Judgment of 11/11/2020, the CJEU ruled on an appeal for annulment against an earlier Judgment of the General Court on an issue that does not have ample precedent and that relates to the interpretation of Article 8(3) EUTMR on the opposition to new trademark applications filed by the agent or representative of an earlier trademark.
EUIPO´s Board of Appeal had upheld the opposition filed by a US company JEROME ALEXANDER CONSULTING (hereinafter JAC) against the trademark application "MINERAL MAGIC" filed by a British company JOHN MILLS (hereinafter JM).
The General Court upheld the appeal filed by JM on the basis of the claim by JM that the aforementioned provision (Art. 8(3) EUTMR) was not applicable if the conflicting signs were not identical (JAC claimed the prior existence of a trademark registered in the USA "MAGIC MINERALS BY JEROME ALEXANDER").
The deliberations of the CJEU and its rationale for revoking the earlier Judgment of the General Court are very important to address the matter at hand.
In order to access the full text of our newsletter, please click on the link below,
Complete bulletin in PDF.