PHILIPS TAKES IT ON THE CHIN FROM REMINGTON IN SHAVER ...

Trang chủ » C-299/99 » PHILIPS TAKES IT ON THE CHIN FROM REMINGTON IN SHAVER ...

Có thể bạn quan tâm

The IPKat Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate! The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here! The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein. SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent). InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
  • Home
    • Home / Jeremy Phillips / PHILIPS TAKES IT ON THE CHIN FROM REMINGTON IN SHAVER SCRAPE PHILIPS TAKES IT ON THE CHIN FROM REMINGTON IN SHAVER SCRAPE - Jeremy Phillips The Butterworths All England Direct subscription-based case law service has just delivered news of Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd and another [2004] EWHC 2327 (Ch) a Chancery Division division of Mr Justice Rimer yesterday.Philips, a Dutch company, made and sold electric rotary shavers and owned UK trade mark 1533452 (the 452 mark)for electric shavers (Class 8). The mark was a two-dimensional picture of the top portion of a three headed rotary electric shaver. The overall picture was that of an inverted equilateral triangle, with the three heads sitting within a raised faceplate of clover leaf design. Philips also owned three other marks comprising three circles within an inverted equilateral triangle. Remington also made and sold electric shavers.In February 2000, Philips sued Remington for trade mark infringement, alleging that Remington (i) sold three headed electric rotary shavers with heads identical or confusingly similar to the 452 mark and (ii) depicted those heads on the packaging in which the shavers were supplied. Remington denied infringing and counterclaimed that the 452 mark and the claimant’s three other marks were invalid since they were functional. Philips argued that the only parts of either the plain or the cloverleaf plate which performed a technical function were the three circular areas of faceplate immediately surrounding the three cutting heads and that the residual areas of the faceplate were non-functional, being parts of the design that were not attributable to the achievement of a technical result. The main issue for Rimer J to determine in these proceedings was whether the 452 mark consisted exclusively of the shape of goods which was necessary to obtain a technical result under the Trade Marks Act 1994 s.3(2)(b).Rimer J dismissed Philips' infringement claim and ordered that all of Philips' marks be revoked. He held, in particular, that:* Section 3(2)(b) presented a bar to registration which, unless it could be overcome, was fatal.* The preferred view of s.3(2)(b) was that, provided each feature of a shape as a whole performed a technical function, it didn't matter that some minute elements of it might not themselves contribute to that performance. In this case the clover leaf was a feature which served the essential technical functions of (i) stretching the skin and (ii)raising the hair, to obtain an effective and painless shave and it was not accepted that there were any parts of the clover leaf that did not contribute to the technical result. Thus the whole of the faceplate, including the clover leaf, contributed to the overall technical objective of giving the user a smooth, effective and comfortable shave and consequently, the whole of it was attributable to obtaining that technical result.* In those circumstances, since s.3(2)(b) was a barrier to registration of the 452 mark. It followed that its registration was invalid. Furthermore, since the other three marks were minimalist representations of shapes whose essential features were solely attributable to obtaining the technical result, they too were excluded from registration by s.3(2)(b).The IPKat has not yet read the full transcript, but wonders how much, if anything, this decision adds to the extensive jurisprudence generated by this issue, including the reference to the European Court of Justice in Case 299/99 Philips v Remington.There heads are better than one here, here, here and here PHILIPS TAKES IT ON THE CHIN FROM REMINGTON IN SHAVER SCRAPE PHILIPS TAKES IT ON THE CHIN FROM REMINGTON IN SHAVER SCRAPE Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, October 22, 2004 Rating: 5 The IPKat licenses the use of its blog posts under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence. Print this post Share This: Facebook Twitter Linkedin Whatsapp Jeremy Phillips

    The IPKat: Intellectual Property News and Fun for Everyone!

    The IPKat: Intellectual Property News and Fun for Everyone!

    How many page-views has the IPKat received?

    Not just any old IPKat ...

    * "Most Popular Intellectual Property Law Blawg" of all time according to Justia rankings, November 2024.* "Most Popular Copyright Blawg" of all time according to Justia rankings, November 2024.* PermaKat Eleonora Rosati has been quoted, and the IPKat has also been hyperlinked on the New York Times, April 2024.* "Best UK Intellectual Property blog" of all time according to FeedSpot, January 2024.* PermaKat Eleonora Rosati and The IPKat are expressly recommended as sources to follow to get an "unstuffy look at IP issues" according to Legal Business, April 2023.* PermaKat Eleonora Rosati received the 2022 Adepi Award. * PermaKat Eleonora Rosati listed as one of the World Intellectual Property Review's "Influential Women in IP" of 2020.* PermaKat Eleonora Rosatilisted as one of the Managing Intellectual Property magazine's "Fifty Most Influential People" of 2018.* IPKat founder and Blogmeister Emeritus Jeremy Phillips listed as one of the Managing Intellectual Property magazine's "Fifty Most Influential People" of 2005, 2011, 2013, and 2014.* Recommended by the European Patent Office as reading material for candidates for the European Qualifying Examinations, 2013.* Listed as "Top Legal Blog" in The Times Online, March 2011.* One of the only two non-US blogs listed in the Blawg 2010 ABA Journal 100.* Court Reporter Top Copyright Blog award winner, November 2010.* Number 1 in the 2010 Top Copyright Blog list compiled by the Copyright Litigation Blog, July 2010.* Selected by the United States Library of Congress for inclusion in its historic collections of Internet materials related to Legal Blawgs as of 2010.* Top Patent Blog poll 2009: 3rd out of 50 in the "Favourite Patent Blog" poll and 2nd out of 50 in the "Most-read" poll.* ComputerWeekly IT Law and Governance Blog of the Year, 20 August 2008.* Best of the Blogs, Times Online, 21 August 2008.

    Get the Kat in your Inbox!

    Over 16,400 readers already subscribe to the IPKat by email.To subscribe click here and enter your preferred e-mail address.Any problems, please let the IPKat team know.

    The Kat that tweets! Current followers: 22.9K

    To follow the IPKat team's posts and comments on X (formerly Twitter), just click here Follow @IpkatTweets by Ipkat

    Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn

    Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn here!

    Follow the IPKat on Facebook

    Follow the IPKat on Facebook here!

    Follow the IPKat on Reddit

    Follow the IPKat on Reddit! Follow the IPKat on Reddit here!

    The IPKat's most-read posts in the past 30 days

    • Infringing AI: Liability for AI-generated outputs under international, EU, and UK copyright law Infringing AI: Liability for AI-generated outputs under international, EU, and UK copyright law
    • IP strategy for AI-assisted drug discovery IP strategy for AI-assisted drug discovery
    • The morality (and patentability) of inventions derived by immoral means (T 2510/18) The morality (and patentability) of inventions derived by immoral means (T 2510/18)
    • Board of Appeal back-pedals on referral in view of "unequivocal" lack of legal basis for the description amendment requirement (T 56/21) Board of Appeal back-pedals on referral in view of "unequivocal" lack of legal basis for the description amendment requirement (T 56/21)
    • [Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool [Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool
    • Two skulls are confusingly similar – Crystal Head Vodka successfully enforced its 3D trade mark Two skulls are confusingly similar – Crystal Head Vodka successfully enforced its 3D trade mark
    • Kärcher successfully enforces its abstract colour trade mark Kärcher successfully enforces its abstract colour trade mark
    • The shape of a mini sausage is not an evocation of PGI “Nürnberger Rostbratwürste” The shape of a mini sausage is not an evocation of PGI “Nürnberger Rostbratwürste”
    • [Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection [Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection
    • AlphaFold: From Nobel Prize to drug-discovery gold mine? AlphaFold: From Nobel Prize to drug-discovery gold mine?

    Search This Blog

    Blog Archive

    • ▼  2004 (733)
      • ▼  October 2004 (81)
        • LAW, LIFE AND BUSINESS ...
        • THE PACKAGING CASE THAT NEARLY SLIPPED AWAY ...
        • SMART(IE) THINKING FROM OHIM
        • AND NOW IT'S THE CROATS' TURN
        • KYRGYZ REPUBLIC GOES FOR GOLD
        • REFUSING TO SUPPLY IN CHEAP JURISDICTIONS MAY BE O...
        • DO KATS BLOW TRUMPETS?
        • FIRE SALE
        • OFFICE POLITICS
        • A NERD BY ANY OTHER NAME
        • A POINTED COMMENT ...
        • VEE HAFF VAYS OF MAKING YOU THIN ...
        • ... BUT IS IT IN GOOD TASTE?
        • RECENTLY REPORTED EUROPEAN TRADE MARK CASES
        • YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE DEAD TO WORK HERE -- BUT IT H...
        • SPEEDY BY NAME ...
        • PICK OF THE BUNCH
        • SHOW ME THE MONEY
        • " ... AND INTERFERENCE MAKES THREE"
        • SYNAGIS LITIGATION WILL REMAIN IN ENGLAND, RULES C...
        • BALLMEROMICS OR BALLMORONICS
        • LATEST FROM IP&T
        • DATABASE RULINGS ON THE HORIZON ...
        • WANT TO BE A MILLIONNAIRE? BE A LAWYER
        • HITLER AND PROPHET MOSES BARRED FROM PLAYING PINBALL
        • WORTH CONSIDERING?
        • PHILIPS TAKES IT ON THE CHIN FROM REMINGTON IN SHA...
        • GENERIC MARKS POSER
        • DO WE, DON'T WE, DO WE, DON'T WE HAVE A DOCTRINE O...
        • UZBEKISTAN JOINS UPOV
        • ECJ REJECTS APPEALS BY KWS SAAT, OHIM
        • IT'S BIG, IT'S FAT ..
        • ONLINE SHOPPING IPKAT-STYLE
        • Bling Bling - the perfect present 
        • ECJ GIVES PHARMACIA RULING
        • DIY DISPUTE NEARING CONCLUSION?
        • COMMENTS PLEASE
        • LAW OF COLLOCATIONS DOES EXIST AFTER ALL, EVEN IF ...
        • CREAM FLOATS TO THE TOP COURT, THEN SINKS
        • BRANDS AND BRANDOS
        • PIG OUT FOR A GUINEA?
        • LEVERAGING IP
        • TEXAN TRADE MARK ENFORCEMENT: WHERE THERE'S MUCK T...
        • NOW IT'S BEER'S TURN
        • LATEST FROM MIP
        • NEWS ROUND-UP FROM THE IPKAT
        • ECJ SEES THE LIGHT
        • FBI AGENTS - COMING TO AN IP OFFICE NEAR YOUThe US...
        • IT'S DISAPPEARED, SO IS IT ART?
        • IT'S NOT ON THEIR WEBSITE ...
        • CFI MAKES NO BONES ABOUT CTM OPPOSITION
        • ADIDAS UBER ALLES?
        • NORTH KOREA SIGNS UP FOR LISBON TREATY, BUT DOES A...
        • THIS ISN’T REALLY ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY…
        • IPKAT INFRINGEMENT WARNING
        • INTERESTING IDEA, BUT IS IT LEGAL?
        • ORDINARY HUBERT CAN'T BE TAKEN FOR A SAINT, SAYS ECJ
        • IPKAT TRANSLATION WATCH
        • LATEST EBL
        • SUPREME COURT TO HEAR FILE SHARING CASE?
        • TRIPs, TEN YEARS ON
        • ET LES FRANCAIS AUSSI
        • IT COSTS THE SUN THE EARTH ...
        • ANYONE FOR A DESIGNER TURKEY?
        • ECJ SNIPPETS
        • LATEST EIPR
        • JORDAN GOES FOR FLOWER POWER
        • TW OCTOBER 2004
        • INDIVIDUAL DOWNLOADERS TARGETED IN UK
        • SONY MOVES TO STOP USING COPY-CONTROL
        • HUMAN RIGHTS ACT DOESN'T CREATE RIGHTS IN IDEAS, R...
        • BRAND RESURRECTION
        • WELDING PATENTS DON'T MEAN WELDED OWNERSHIP
        • VITAKRAFT and NLSPORT UP FOR APPEAL
        • NEW STADIUM LEADS TO BRAND BOTHER
        • LOW-GRADE FIFTY DOLLAR BILLS NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE
        • DESIGNS REVIEW: YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT
        • NEW STADIUM LEADS TO BRAND BOTHER
        • REMINDER: A BIT OF LIGHT RELIEF
        • RECENTLY REPORTED COPYRIGHT CASES
        • COURT ORDERS DELIVERY UP OF DIANA SPEECH TAPE

    Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence

    Image result for cc-by-ncThe IPKat licenses the use of its blog posts under this Creative Commons Licence.

    Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

    Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe': Any problems, please let the IPKat team know.

    Feed me IPKat!

    Posts Atom Posts Comments Atom Comments

    Has the Kat got your tongue?

    The IPKat's cousins: some IP-friendly blogs for you

    • IPTango 10th Session of the WIPO Conversation on IP & Frontier Technologies, AI Output: To Protect, or Not to Protect – that is the IP Question
    • IP finance AI as a Valuation Helper: Duty to Disclose AI Use
    • The SPC blog SPC blog event in person - October 2024
    • jiplp Announcing new JIPLP Special Issue on Fashion and IP!
    • Afro-IP - african intellectual property law, practice and policies Van's Aircraft let down by its IP Policies as well
    • SOLO Independent IP Practitioners BONZO DOG and the last men standing principle
    • At last ... the 1709 Copyright Blog 2019 - THE COPYRIGHT YEAR
    • MARQUES Class 46 Blog MoU on online advertising and IPR to be signed during Blockathon
    • MARQUES

    Out for the count...

    Created By SoraTemplates | Distributed By Gooyaabi Templates Powered by Blogger.

    Từ khóa » C-299/99