Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
The EU General Court has dismissed an appeal against the OHIM Board of Appeal’s decision to allow opposition against registration of a figurative mark consisting of the words METRO KIDS COMPANY on the grounds that there is a likelihood of confusion with an earlier trade mark METRO.
The court agreed while the ‘metro’ element of the proposed mark was distinctive the additional wording “kids company est. 1989” was not sufficiently distinctive, the figurative element was mainly decorative and aurally customers would tend to abbreviate the mark to ‘metro’. The word ‘metro’ was considered to be the dominant element of the proposed mark and was similar to the earlier mark, leading to a likelihood of confusion.
Ultimately, this is the right decision. Trade mark owner’s rights ought to be protected against others who attempt to take advantage of an existing mark by adding ‘token’ images or words. When applying for a mark it is important to ensure that the mark is distinctive when considered as a whole.
Break rights have proved a fertile source of litigation over the last few years. More often than not, tenants have found themselves on the wrong end of the decisions. However, a Court of Appeal decision yesterday has bucked that trend.
View blog
One of the requirements for tenants to contract out of the security of tenure regime contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is that they make a simple or statutory declaration before entering into the lease.
Landlords should reconsider summary judgment if a Part 26A restructuring plan is pending.
A landlord’s claim for summary judgment to recover rent and service charge arrears accrued since the start of the pandemic against a non-essential retailer succeeded. Like London buses, a second such case has followed hot on its heels.
Partner
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up