Richard Milchior, partner (Granrut), publishes a summary regarding the decision of the French State Council to reject a request by five tobacco companies and one tobacco confederation.

The French « law of health system modernization »

The tobacco companies and confederation requested to cancel two decrees and two orders implementing the French « law of health system modernization » which introduces legislation on plain cigarette packaging in december 2016, the French State Council rejected the request.

A particularly concerning the use of a trademark

This decision provides a particularly concerning interpretation of the scope and nature to use a trademark. Indeed, the plaintiffs based their demands on fundamental rights, including property rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of commerce and industry. The French State Council adjudicated the validity of contentious decrees and orders, when studied in relation to international trademark rules and international texts protecting fundamental rights, of European trademark regulation, and, finally, of French Intellectual Property Code and French Health Law Code.

This article first appeared on the International Trademark Association (INTA) Buletin. To read the full article, please go to “French State Council rejects legal arguments against plain packaging of cigarettes”.

Richard Milchior, partner (Granrut), publishes a summary regarding the case Länsförsäkringar AB against Matek A/S.

The likelyhood of confusion for the use of a logo

Länsförsäkringar AB operates in the fields of banking, investment and insurance, and owns an EU figurative trademark registered on 2008. Matek A/S company, whose principal activity consists in manufacturing and assembling wooden houses, began in 2007 to use a logo whose registration is secured in 2009 for goods.

Registration and use of the mark

Länsförsäkringar AB took the view that Matek A/S had infringed an exclusive right conferred by its EU trademark from using signs similar to its mark in the course of trade in Sweden by the Stockholm District Court. Then, the appeal was made before the Supreme Court of Sweden. The case was grounded on the theory that, during the period of five years following registration of a EU trademark, the assessment of the likelihood of confusion must be based solely on that registration and not on the actual use of the mark.

The supreme court referred the case to the Court of the European Union which found that the referring court had to decide the similarity of the goods and services at issue and the existence of a likelihood of confusion.

Read the full article : The genuine use of a mark during the five year period following registration is examined on the basis of the goods and services as included in the filing