Jeremy Phillips reports on some “thought I’d seen it all” hijinx from the renowned European Court of F’rinstance:
Although [the IPKat] e is generally reluctant to criticise individual IP rights owners for seeking to protect their market position, and equally reluctant to criticise those members of the IP professions who represent them, there are times when the temptation to do so becomes very great. . . .
The Opposition Division, the Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance were all united in considering that the respective sign and mark were not hugely similar. The miracle is that it took the Court some 22 paragraphs of patient, formulaic judgment to explain that the marks were dissimilar.
The IPKat has seen some dissimilar marks touted as being similar over the years, but he doesn’t think he has ever seen so egregious a case of dissimilarity as this.