1. OHIM Mini Webinar: Beginner Module on CTM Rhys Morgan, Dafydd Collins 22 May 2014

2. INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMUNITY TRADE MARK SYSTEM AND OHIM PART 1 Rhys Morgan

6. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL PART 2 Dafydd Collins ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

7. 7(1)(b) ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

8. (27/02/2002, T-79/00, 'LITE', paragraph 26) ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

9. (30/06/2004, T ‑ 281/02, ‘Mehr für Ihr Geld’) ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

10. 7(1)(b) REFUSED ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

11. 7(1)(b) ACCEPTED ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

12. C-329/02 P SAT.1 v OHIM [2204] ECR I-8317 ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

13. 7(1)(b) L - Super Slim Fit Class 25 Clothing ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

14. 7(1)(b) Super Slim Fit Class 25 Clothing L ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

15. FOOTBALL CLASS 28 7(1)(b) ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

16. Chiemsee C-108/97 & C-109/97 ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

17. (23/10/2003,C-191/01P, “DOUBLEMINT”)

18. 7(1)(d) ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

19. 7(1)(e)(i) ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

20. 7(1)(e)(ii) ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

21. 7(1)(e)(iii) ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

22. 7(1)(f) ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

23. 7(1)(f) “DE PUTA MADRE” Acceptable Refusable ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

24. 7(1)(g) SARKO Vegetarian Foods Class 29 Meat products BRUNI Silk Class 25 Nylon stockings ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

25. 7(1)(g) THEWLIS GIN Class 33 Alcoholic beverages ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

26. 7(1)(h) ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

27. 7(1)(i) ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

28. 7(1)(k) Mark accepted upon limitation: “Lamb and prepared foods; all in conformity with the specifications of the protected geographical indication “Welsh Lamb”. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

29. RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL PART 3 Rhys Morgan

30. Branded Football Stadia Bayern Munich Arsenal Manchester City RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

32. Ambush Marketing: RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

35. Grand Board of Appeal decision of 23 May 2012– R 1790/2011-5 – 4REFUEL (FIG. MARK)/REFUEL paragraph 11: ‘The sole fact that the earlier mark has been registered as a Community trade mark does not preclude the Board from finding it to be largely descriptive, or, in other words, from having a low intrinsic distinctive character in relation to the goods and services it covers. The Board must also keep the general public interest in mind. In this instance, it means that descriptive signs should not be protected beyond what is compatible with the possibility for all to use signs that are necessary to describe the goods and services that are legitimately traded by competitors.’ RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

36. Jeremy Phillips - ‘Strong trademarks and the likelihood of confusion in European law’ (Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol. 1, No. 6 [2006]): RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

37. Jeremy Phillips - ‘Strong trademarks and the likelihood of confusion in European law’ (Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol. 1, No. 6 [2006]): RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

38. ‘The consumer rarely gets a chance to see two marks together and to compare them side by side’. RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

39. Differences between trademarks are more noticeable than the similarities: WHITE GOOGLE v BLACK GOOGLE SCREW YOU v SCREW UP ELVIS LIGHT v ELVIS EXTRA RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

41. ‘The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection’ by Frank I. Schechter [Harvard Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 6 (Apr., 1927), pp. 813-833] RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL

42. Thank You (+ 34) 965 139 100 (switchboard) (+ 34) 965 139 400 (e-business technical incidents) (+ 34) 965 131 344 (main fax) information@oami.europa.eu e-businesshelp@oami.europa.eu twitter/oamitweets youtube/oamitubes www.oami.europa.eu CONTACT US :