powered by Lexis^®PSL

LEXISNEXIS_ICONS_SUPPORT

Home / IP / Trade marks/passing off / Trade mark transactions and management

Legal News

EU General Court holds stylised cannabis mark contrary to public policy (Santa Conte v EUIPO)

EU General Court holds stylised cannabis mark contrary to public policy (Santa Conte v EUIPO)

Published on: 12 December 2019

Published by: LexisPSL

EU General Court holds stylised cannabis mark contrary to public policy (Santa Conte v EUIPO)
What are the practical implications of this case?
What was the background?
What did the court decide?
Case details

Article summary

IP analysis: The General Court has dismissed an appeal against a decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal that an application to register as an EU trade mark a figurative sign featuring the words ‘CANNABIS STORE AMSTERDAM’ against a background of marijuana leaf symbols should be refused on the basis that it was contrary to public policy, pursuant to Article 7(1)(f) and Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001. Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents

The pari passu principle and collection remedies for the office-holder—the position under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016

The pari passu principle and collection remedies for the office-holder—the position under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016

The primary function of office-holders in personal and corporate insolvency is to collect in the assets belonging to a company or individual and to distribute these to the company's or individual's creditors. Office-holders have various duties and powers in order to ensure that they do this. For

Overreaching—sales by trustees of land

Overreaching—sales by trustees of land

Broadly, the doctrine of overreaching enables purchasers (which includes tenants and mortgagees) in good faith for money or money’s worth to rely solely on the legal title. In the case of registered land, this means the entries entered on the register of title, as it records ownership of the legal

Letter to client on disclosure obligations under CPR 31

Letter to client on disclosure obligations under CPR 31

This Precedent letter covers disclosure obligations under CPR 31. It does not apply to proceedings subject to the disclosure pilot scheme under CPR PD 51U. For guidance on the disclosure pilot scheme, see Practice Note: Business and Property Courts—the disclosure pilot scheme. For a client letter on

Mistake in contract law

Mistake in contract law

This Practice Note considers the legal concept of mistake in contract law. It examines common mistake, mutual mistake, unilateral mistake, mistake as to identity and mistake as to the document signed (non est factum). It also considers the impact of each of these types of mistake on the contract and