Irrevocable consent — it’s not forever
A trademark owner cannot be prevented from withdrawing consent to a third party’s use of the identical trademark in relation to identical/similar goods and services.
This arose from a referral from the Belgian Court of Cassation to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in a case where a trademark owner withdrew its consent to the use of its trademark by a third party. Consent was withdrawn after the third party had been using the trademark for a number of years, and the Belgian Court sought guidance as to whether the trademark owner was free to re-assert its exclusive right to use of the trademark in these circumstances.
The court referred two main questions to the CJEU: can a registered trademark owner assert its exclusive trademark rights to prevent the use of that trademark by a third party, where the ownership of that trademark has effectively been shared by the parties over a number of years, and where the trademark owner granted its irrevocableconsent to use of that mark by that third party; and is any national law permissible that would prevent the trademark owner from asserting its trademark rights against the third party, e.g. unfair competition rules? …
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Addleshaw Goddard briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Addleshaw Goddard
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Addleshaw Goddard
Addleshaw Goddard has released the 16 October 2014 issue of its Data Issues Roundup, which provides a weekly round-up of data issues.
This round-up includes costs and unreasonable refusals to engage in ADR and four recent cases considering the refusal by one party to engage in ADR.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
Could Slater & Gordon achieve its stated aim of becoming a top consumer brand by acquiring Pannone?