Trade mark registration denied because while the registration of an earlier identical mark had been revoked, the effective date of revocation was from the date of the application for revocation and there was still a residual period of validity of the revoked mark which would have overlapped with the period of validity of the applied for mark resulting in a period of time where two identical marks would have been on the trade mark register for the same class.
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact firstname.lastname@example.org or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
Campomar SL v Nike International Ltd
To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader.
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at email@example.com.
"Lexology is a quick and useful indicator of developments in the legal sphere. It alerts me to changes taking place in the legal environment in South Africa that I may not otherwise have spotted or had immediate access...
"Lexology is a quick and useful indicator of developments in the legal sphere. It alerts me to changes taking place in the legal environment in South Africa that I may not otherwise have spotted or had immediate access to as a company lawyer. It definitely serves as a trigger for me to investigate such changes in the legal landscape in South Africa as they may affect my work and that of my employer. I believe that receiving Lexology provides me with a competitive advantage."
Dr Jürgen Fegbeutel
Legal Services Director
BMW (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd