double_arrow
Article Archive

double_arrow Ask an Expert

reCAPTCHA

What Our Customers Say...

5.0
Based on 101 reviews
powered by Google
26dragon76 profile picture
26dragon76
15:31 23 Jul 25
A truly exceptional experience – thank you Albright IP!

I want to personally thank Charlie Heal , Emily Fox, Cara McAtee, and the entire team at Albright IP for their hard work, dedication, and professionalism in helping me submit my first ever patent: the Baffer Ball fire suppression system.

From the very first meeting, Charlie and Emily made everything feel clear, comfortable, and respectful. They listened carefully to my ideas, even though I’m not from a technical or legal background – I’m a painter and decorator by trade. But they believed in my vision and treated it with such care and seriousness that I felt truly supported as an inventor.

Over several months, we worked closely by email and phone. Charlie and the team guided me step by step to build one of the strongest, clearest, and most professional patent drafts I could have hoped for. The claims they wrote are powerful, and the language used shows how deeply they understood my invention. They didn’t just file a document – they helped shape a legacy.

Charlie, even though he is young, is incredibly professional and experienced. I am amazed at how he managed such a complex project with kindness, patience, and precision. Emily and Cara were also fantastic throughout.

This was not just paperwork – this was my dream since childhood. And Albright IP helped me make that dream real.

💬 I look forward to working with them again on future patents. The Baffer Ball is just the beginning – and I am proud that Albright IP was there from Day 1.

Thank you so much again — from the bottom of my heart.
— Morteza
Jilna Shah profile picture
Jilna Shah
07:13 13 Jul 25
I've been working with Marc Maidment on pursuing a patent for my business, and I honestly couldn’t ask for a better attorney. As someone with no experience with the patent process and how it works, Marc takes the time to explain everything clearly and thoroughly, breaking down complex legal processes in a way that is easy to understand.

He’s not only incredibly knowledgeable, but also warm and approachable. No question has ever felt too small, and he genuinely cares about the success of my business. I’d highly recommend Marc to anyone looking for a dedicated, trustworthy, and skilled patent attorney.
Jon Baker profile picture
Jon Baker
15:23 19 Mar 25
Albright IP have been brilliant from my first call all the way through to submitting our Patent Application. I look forward to working with them on future IP projects. Jon Baker - Design 360 Ltd
See All Reviews


double_arrow
Need a Product Designer?


double_arrow
Helpful Tips

Do I have to identify the designer?
It is possible to waive the name of the designer when filing a European Community Design, but you should be sure that you have the rights to the design

Golden Balls: A battle of David vs. Goliath

by | Sep 24, 2013

A recent decision of the General Court of the European Union allows use and registration of the trademark GOLDEN BALLS by Golden Balls Limited, despite a 6 year long legal battle brought by Intra-Presse, the owners of the BALLON D’OR trade mark. The issues revolved around the rights and reputation in an internationally recognised football award, which translates to “Ball of gold”.

The background

In 2002, Golden Balls Limited was established, and began to use the trademark GOLDEN BALLS in respect a variety of goods, including sportswear. When the British company looked to expand in Europe in 2007, as a consequence of them having entered into a licensing agreement with the game show organisers Endemol, a number of legal difficulties were encountered.  This was despite securing UK trademark protection for GOLDEN BALLS in respect of “Clothing, footwear and headgear” back in 2001.

Intra-Presse, are the organisers of the BALLON D’OR award which is given to the European footballer of the year. They filed oppositions against both of the community trademark applications for GOLDEN BALLS. These were based on the likelihood of confusion between the trademarks, and the vast reputation that Intra-Presse had acquired.

The issues

The opposition division of the community trademark office found in favour of Golden Balls Limited, holding that the respective trademarks GOLDEN BALLS and BALLON D’OR were “globally dissimilar”. Hence, there was no likelihood of confusion. This decision was subsequently appealed by Intra-Presse to the Board of Appeal, where surprisingly the trademarks were found to be conceptually identical or highly similar, to the extent that the average French consumer would believe that the trademark GOLDEN BALLS is a translation of the earlier trademark BALLON D’OR. Therefore, in light of the fact that the trademarks were being applied to identical goods, the assumption would be made that the two undertakings were linked. The appeal therefore succeeded in relation to the identical Class 16 goods in issue, namely “Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials”, but not in relation to all of the goods that were being objected to.

On referral to the General Court of the European Union (GC), some order was restored. The decision of the GC was handed down on 16 September 2013, finding that that the trademarks GOLDEN BALLS and BALLON D’OR are not conceptual identical or highly similar and, once translated, can only be deemed to be slightly similar.

It was held that although a mere conceptual similarity between two trademarks can create a likelihood of confusion when the goods are similar. The earlier trademark must have established a highly distinctive character. In this case, the trademark BALLON D’OR had not established sufficient distinctive character to render the trademarks in issue confusingly similar, particularly given that they require translation. The Board of Appeal had mistakenly found the respective trade marks to be conceptually identical or highly similar. Given that the signs at issue are in different languages, the average consumer is not likely to “immediately associate them without undergoing an intellectual process of translation”.

Summary

The decision reached by the GC is welcomed and appears to be pragmatic. It gives hope and reassurance to small businesses that investing in their brand and defending their position is worthwhile, provided their case has merit.

ASK AN ATTORNEY

reCAPTCHA