Apple Heading For Collision?; Adam Opel Example - The Ag Speaks

Fermenting trouble? Apple goes for MacBook

According to Appleinsider stylish figurer companionship Apple filed a the US merchandise grade application for the give-and-take "MacBook" end month.

notes how litigious burger-meisters McDonalds tin dismiss be, when confronted amongst alien applications to register words kickoff amongst "Mac". He every bit good records Apple's famous too on-going battle with Beatles' offshoot Apple Corps over the utilisation of the term Apple inwards honor of electronic devices for playing music. He only hopes this won't destination upwards inwards courtroom ... Merpel says, oh aye you lot attain - but you lot haven't quite worked out how to piece Schadenfreude.

Non-Apple MacBook here

Apple Insider here; apple tree inwards cider here


Replica ruling - an Advocate General speaks

Today brings a European Court of Justice Opinion from Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer inwards Case C-48/05 Adam Opel AG v Autec AG, a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth (Germany).

The questions referred to the ECJ are every bit follows:

"Does the utilisation of a merchandise grade registered every bit good for 'toys' institute utilisation every bit a merchandise grade for the purposes of Article 5(1)(a) of the Trade Mark Directive if the manufacturer of a toy model machine copies a existent machine inwards a reduced scale, including the merchandise grade of the proprietor of the merchandise grade every bit applied to the existent car, too markets it?

If the answer to Question inwards 1 is inwards the affirmative: is the type of utilisation of the merchandise grade described inwards Question 1 an indication of the variety or character of the model machine within the important of Article 6(1)(а) of the Trade Mark Directive?

If the answer to Question ii is inwards the affirmative:

In cases of this type what are the decisive criteria to last applied inwards assessing whether the merchandise grade corresponds to honest practices inwards industrial or commercial matters?

4. Is this inwards item the illustration if the manufacturer of the model machine applies to the packaging, too to an accessory required inwards lodge to utilisation the model, a grade recognisable to the merchandise every bit its ain merchandise grade together amongst its companionship yell too the address of its seat?"

The Advocate General's Opinion is non nonetheless available inwards English, but he advises the courtroom every bit follows (in French):

"62. gold vu des réflexions qui précèdent, je advise à la Cour de répondre au Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth comme suit:

"1. L’utilisation d’un signe enregistré sur des jouets ne constitue pas un usage en tant que marque, au sens de l’article 5(1)(a)(a), de la Directive 89/104 ... lorsque le fabricant d’une maquette d’automobile reproduit à échelle réduite et commercialise une réplique d’un modèle réellement existant sur laquelle figure la marque du titulaire".

63. Dans l’hypothèse où la Cour ne partagerait pas ce betoken de vue pour la première question, je l’invite à répondre aux deuxième et troisième questions comme suit:

"2. La forme d’usage de la marque décrite dans la première inquiry constitue une indication relative à d’autres caractéristiques de la maquette d’automobile, au sens de l’article 6(1)(b), de la directive 89/104.

3. Dans des cas tels qu’en l’espèce, les critères pertinents pour déterminer si l’utilisation de la marque est conforme aux usages honnêtes en matière industrielle ou commerciale sont ceux dégagés par la jurisprudence de la Cour dans les arrêts Anheuser-Busch ainsi que Gillette Company et Gillette Group Finland, précités.

Lorsque le fabricant de la maquette d’une automobile appose sur l’emballage et sur un accessoire nécessaire à l’utilisation du jouet un signe reconnaissable dans le commerce comme étant sa propre marque ainsi que sa dénomination sociale avec indication de boy siège social, il agit conformément aux usages honnêtes en matière industrielle ou commerciale, sans préjudice de l’appréciation globale de toutes les circonstances pertinentes, qui incombe à la juridiction nationale".

This comes out inwards Babelfish, slightly edited past times the IPKat, as:

"62. ...I advise at the Court to ... answer ...: "1. The utilisation of a sign recorded on toys does non institute a utilisation every bit a mark, within the important of Article 5(1)(a), of Directive 89/104 ... when the manufacturer of a model of machine reproduces on a reduced scale too markets a counterpart of a actually existing model on which figures the grade of the holder ".

63. On the supposition that the Court would non percentage this betoken of persuasion for the foremost question, I invite it to answer the minute too 3rd questions every bit follows:

"2. The degree of utilisation of the grade described inwards the foremost inquiry constitutes an indication relative to other characteristics of the model of car, within the important of Article 6(1)(b),of Directive 89/104.

3. In cases such every bit inwards the species, relevant criteria to determine if the utilisation of the grade is inwards conformity amongst the honest uses out of affair industrial or commercial are those released past times the decisions of the Court inwards Anheuser-Busch too Gillette Company too Gillette Group Finland, mentioned inwards a higher house . When the manufacturer of the model of a machine affixes on packing too on an accessory necessary to the utilisation of the toy a recognizable sign inwards the merchandise every bit existence his ain grade similar his companionship yell amongst indication of his registered office, it acts inwards accordance amongst the honest uses inwards industrial or commercial matters, without harm of the overall assessment of all the relevant circumstances, which ut falls on the national jurisdiction to decide".

This conclusion seems both reasonable too predictable to the IPKat, who wonders if his readers agree.