EU Court: Skype is too similar to Sky in trademark dispute

[grumbler]

It's a sensible decision, not every brand is needed or deserve to have trademark protection.

This only comes a surprise because the US Court pretty rubber stamp any & all applications.

Why shouldn't trademarks receive trademark protection/  Why is giving trademarks trademark protection just a matter of a "rubber stamp?"  Do you say that Canadian marriage license issuers just "rubber stamp" marriage license applications?

[grumbler]

It's a sensible decision, not every brand is needed or deserve to have trademark protection.

This only comes a surprise because the US Court pretty rubber stamp any & all applications.

Skype, dude. We are talking about Skype.

Yes? Trade & Patent courts give protection way too easily to internet/software based brands.

Why do you think so?  How can we distinguish between giving "protection way too easily" to giving "protection just about exactly easily enough?"

[Josquius]

Bad prescedent.
3 letters the same is enough to be an intrusion?
Will it be 2 next?
Then 1?
Only 26 companies allowed in the UK?

[The Minsky Moment]

It's a sensible decision, not every brand is needed or deserve to have trademark protection.

This only comes a surprise because the US Court pretty rubber stamp any & all applications.

???
Where to start.  US courts don't entertain TM applications - those go to an agency, the PTO.  US courts often deny trademark protection when challenges arise.  The possession of a valid and enforceable TM is based not on "need" or "desert" but on criteria set forth in the law.  Those criteria seem to be similar in the US and EU based on the OP case report, although it is possible (likely?) that a typical US court might come to a different decision.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes? Trade & Patent courts give protection way too easily to internet/software based brands.

Oh more.  There is no "trade & patent" court.  Patent cases go to federal district courts, some who favor patentees, some not.  Appeals usually go to the Federal Circuit. That is sort of like a "patent court" and it is sort of pro-patentee.  However, they keep getting reversed by the Supreme Court (yeah those guys) in a series of cases over the past decade that have ratcheted back significantly on patent.  Not to mention there are 3-4 "reform" bills floating around Congress that would ratchet back further.

Trademark cases usually go to regular federal courts and I am not aware of any perception that the US is more protective than other jurisdictions.

[Grey Fox]

You really can't take verbal shortcuts when it comes to Patent & Trademarks law or the Grammar-Law police is on your ass HARD.

[Neil]

Meh.  It's an American tech company.  It's a matter of policy for European institutions to persecute them.

[The Minsky Moment]

GF- these aren't grammatical quibbles.  The gist of your posts seems to be that the US is comparatively highly protective of patent and trademarks (compared to ?) and that the courts in particular are overly solicitous to rights holders ("rubber stamps"). If that was not the point you are trying to convey, tell me and I will stand corrected.  But in reality I don't think the US regime stands out that much and the clear trend going back about a decade is court rulings against putative or actual rights holders.

I haven't reviewed the EU decision in the OP, but the article indicates that the decision had nothing to do with Skype's right or eligibility for TM protection in theory; rather the issue seems to have been that the court found the proposed mark to be confusingly similar to Sky's.  US law has the same doctrine, and US courts adopt similar approaches in analyzing claims of confusion and similarity.  The outcome here is curious at first glance, though without seeing the court's reasoning, it's hard to evaluate.

[Admiral Yi]

You should have just called him a little turd in Yiddish and saved the time.

[jimmy olsen]

Yes? Trade & Patent courts give protection way too easily to internet/software based brands.

Oh more.  There is no "trade & patent" court.  Patent cases go to federal district courts, some who favor patentees, some not.  Appeals usually go to the Federal Circuit. That is sort of like a "patent court" and it is sort of pro-patentee.  However, they keep getting reversed by the Supreme Court (yeah those guys) in a series of cases over the past decade that have ratcheted back significantly on patent.  Not to mention there are 3-4 "reform" bills floating around Congress that would ratchet back further.

Ooh...that sounds interesting, could you elaborate on that or post a link to an explanation aimed at laymen?

[grumbler]

GF- these aren't grammatical quibbles.  The gist of your posts seems to be that the US is comparatively highly protective of patent and trademarks (compared to ?) and that the courts in particular are overly solicitous to rights holders ("rubber stamps"). If that was not the point you are trying to convey, tell me and I will stand corrected.  But in reality I don't think the US regime stands out that much and the clear trend going back about a decade is court rulings against putative or actual rights holders.

I haven't reviewed the EU decision in the OP, but the article indicates that the decision had nothing to do with Skype's right or eligibility for TM protection in theory; rather the issue seems to have been that the court found the proposed mark to be confusingly similar to Sky's.  US law has the same doctrine, and US courts adopt similar approaches in analyzing claims of confusion and similarity.  The outcome here is curious at first glance, though without seeing the court's reasoning, it's hard to evaluate.

I'm not sure GF is making intellectual arguments.  I tried to get him to restate his emo generalizations in more specific terms (like, what limits he feels are being over-stepped), but he has just responded with more emo.   Given that he's not making intellectual arguments, I don't think he can be persuaded by your intellectual arguments.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ooh...that sounds interesting, could you elaborate on that or post a link to an explanation aimed at laymen?

Some of the major ones are:

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006): Supreme Court reversed the longstanding presumption that patentees could get injunctions, ruled that standard test for injunctive relief applies

KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) - Supreme Court made it easier for accused infringers to invalidate a patent for obviousness

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012)
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014)

Series of decisions limited the scope of what is patentable - significant impact on business method patents and software patents in particular.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm not sure GF is making intellectual arguments.  I tried to get him to restate his emo generalizations in more specific terms (like, what limits he feels are being over-stepped), but he has just responded with more emo.   Given that he's not making intellectual arguments, I don't think he can be persuaded by your intellectual arguments.

Domo arigato, Mr. Grumbler.

[Grey Fox]

GF- these aren't grammatical quibbles.  The gist of your posts seems to be that the US is comparatively highly protective of patent and trademarks (compared to ?) and that the courts in particular are overly solicitous to rights holders ("rubber stamps"). If that was not the point you are trying to convey, tell me and I will stand corrected.  But in reality I don't think the US regime stands out that much and the clear trend going back about a decade is court rulings against putative or actual rights holders.

That's my point but I went wrong when I used "court" instead of the PTO office for the whole generalization. Compared to? Compare to running/particing a sensible society.

The PTO gave a design patent to the Apple Watch! A square with round corner!

[Grey Fox]

I'm not sure GF is making intellectual arguments.  I tried to get him to restate his emo generalizations in more specific terms (like, what limits he feels are being over-stepped), but he has just responded with more emo.   Given that he's not making intellectual arguments, I don't think he can be persuaded by your intellectual arguments.

We don't have marriage licences, afaik.

My mastery of the written language, any of them, is not up to par to have an intellectual argument in a timely manner during the work day.