ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IPKat

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: IPKat

"We haven't registered Obama", says OHIM

By Johanna Gibson, David Pearce, Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon.

ADVERTISEMENTS
The IPKat receives some odd announcements and press releases, but this is definitely one of the most curious. Under the heading "Statement", this release comes from the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) itself. It comes with an explanatory rubric ("You may have seen that there has been an EFE story that OHIM has registered "OBAMA" as a Community trade mark. This is not correct - there has just been an application at present. In case you are interested here is our statement") and reads as follows:
"OHIM has received an application on behalf of a Spanish individual for the Community trade mark "OBAMA". The examination formalities have not been completed as we have not yet received the payment of the application fee, so "OBAMA" has not been registered by the Office. If the application passes on examination, it is published in order to allow oppositions to be made during a three month time limit, and it can only be registered if it successfully completes this process.

In general terms, if a trade mark is distinctive and not descriptive for the goods and services applied for, is not deceptive with regards to the origin of the goods and services or contrary to public policy, it will be accepted. To be rejected on public policy grounds, the trade mark would have, for example, to be racist, pornographic or related to terrorism.

While we do not comment on the merits of individual applications, the Office Guidelines on the examination of trade marks specify that "names of individual persons are usually distinctive" and "the same is true for names of prominent persons, including head of states." (page 37) and it adds that they "will no longer be considered as deceptive or contrary to public policy" (page 51)".

So now you know.  Merpel says, I seem to recall that an application to register the word mark BILL CLINTON was refused.  Is it just the Democrats ...?

Full post as published by IPKat on April 23, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 11/06/26 10:54:41)