EUIPO confirms PHŌNX and PHOENIX are confusingly similar
202611.03
0

EUIPO confirms PHŌNX and PHOENIX are confusingly similar

EUIPO upholds opposition against the PHŌNX trademark application, finding a likelihood of confusion with the earlier PHOENIX Pharma mark. IP Consulting successfully represented the Bulgarian company Фьоникс Фарма ЕООД (PHOENIX Pharma) in opposition proceedings before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). On October 30, 2026, the EUIPO Opposition Division upheld the opposition in full….

202610.29
0

NERO CHAMPAGNE Trademark Judgment Part II: EU Court Clarifies PDO Protection

Judgment of 25 June 2025 in Case T-239/23, NERO CHAMPAGNE / Champagne (GI), EU:T:2025:638 The NERO CHAMPAGNE trademark judgment addresses the relationship between EU trademark registration and the protection of geographical indications. On 25 June 2025, the General Court of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case T-239/23. The dispute concerned the registration of…

NERO CHAMPAGNE: When Can a Trademark Use a Protected Designation of Origin?
202610.22
0

NERO CHAMPAGNE: When Can a Trademark Use a Protected Designation of Origin?

The General Court of the European Union clarifies the conditions for registering trademarks containing protected designations of origin. It also highlights the need to assess the risk of unfairly exploiting their reputation. Can a company register a trademark containing a protected designation of origin if its products meet all the requirements for using that designation?…

EUIPO – European union trade mark “ERTHA”  and  EUTM application “ETHA”
202408.20
0

EUIPO – European union trade mark “ERTHA” and EUTM application “ETHA”

A trademark dispute was adjudicated by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), in which “Фаст Трак” ЕООД was involved as an opponent, represented by IP Consulting. The dispute arrised over European Union Trademark (EUTM) application No. 18 408 531 for the figurative mark “ERTHA.” The claim of the opponent, supported by IP Consulting  was…

Successful Defence in EUIPO Opposition Case Against Trade Mark Application
202311.25
0

Successful Defence in EUIPO Opposition Case Against Trade Mark Application

IP Consulting Ltd. represented Phiacademy Doo Beograd in the EUIPO Opposition No B 3 181 492. The case involved an opposition filed by Phiacademy Doo Beograd against the European Union trade mark application No 18 722 371 (figurative mark), which was based on the earlier international trade mark registration designating Ireland No 1 511 559…

Trade Mark REVELE confusingly similar to European Union Trade Mark REVUELE
202209.05
0

Trade Mark REVELE confusingly similar to European Union Trade Mark REVUELE

THE CASE  The company LIFY COSMETICS JSC filed on July 22, 2021, the application for registration No 4787286 relating to the trademark REVELE (word trademark in France). REVUELE Ltd., Bulgaria, a client of IP Consulting Ltd., filed an Opposition against all the goods and services in Class 3 of the said trademark before the National…

European Union Trade Mark (EUIPO) – Criteria for use of a trademark
202208.20
0

European Union Trade Mark (EUIPO) – Criteria for use of a trademark

THE CASE Cooperation Panda, Corporation, Tsarigradsko Shose Blvd 139, 1784 Sofia, Bulgaria (applicant), represented by IP Consulting Ltd.,(European trademark attorneys) filed a request for revocation of EUTM (European Union trademark) No 9 496 911 (figurative mark) before the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office). The request is directed against all the goods covered by the…

EUIPO – European Union trade mark cancelled due to lack of distinctiveness
202208.05
0

EUIPO – European Union trade mark cancelled due to lack of distinctiveness

THE CASE Елби 70 АД (applicant), represented by Ip Consulting Ltd.,(professional representative) filed a request for a declaration of invalidity against European Union trade mark No 1 755 511 COCOCARE (word mark) (the EUTM), filed on 13/07/2000 and registered on 30/04/2002.  SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS  The applicant argues that the contested mark is composed…

A non distinctive element in a trade mark cannot lead to possibility of confusion
202206.15
0

A non distinctive element in a trade mark cannot lead to possibility of confusion

The case  An opposition has been filed with ref. No 70111020/24.01.2019, according to the opponent there is visual, phonetic and semantic similarity between the earlier mark “Б. П. бирени’ and the trademark applied for, as the signs contain common distinctive and dominant elements, namely ‘пръчици’ and ‘бирени’. The applicant of the opposed mark ИНТЕРМЕС Ltd….