double_arrow
Article Archive

double_arrow Ask an Attorney

reCAPTCHA

What Our Customers Say...

Albright IP Limited
4.9
Based on 90 reviews
powered by Google
Emily Warwick
Emily Warwick
14:56 27 Jul 22
My experience with Albright IP has been flawless from start to finish. I... have never filed a patent before so I was learning everything as I went along. They have been helpful in every way possible and gone the extra mile to ensure I was kept in the loop and happy as everything was going through each step of the way. I cannot express enough how pleased I am with their service. I had the pleasure of working with Will, Abigail, and Adrian. I would recommend Albright IP to anyone looking to file a patent application.read more
Simon Mills
Simon Mills
13:22 06 Jul 22
Super helpful advice, and really friendly service. Highly recommend... Albright for IP advice and services.read more
Luke D.
Luke D.
11:25 23 May 22
Was a pleasure to work with Will and Melissa on a patent draft and filing.... Will took the time to understand both my software product and the commercial motivations behind the patent filing. They were extremely responsive to questions and clarifications throughout the process (availability isn't everything, but it certainly helps!).They were also very clear regarding fees, and set out a very helpful visual timeline and cost breakdown on the whole patent application process at the pre-sales stage. This emphasis on making sure I understood all aspects of the work, and having documentation to help with that, is something I didn't see with any of the other patent services I was talking to at the time. This clear communication continued throughout our interactions.Would recommend Albright IP to anyone looking to patent an invention. The patent they filed for me was for a software invention.read more
See All Reviews
js_loader


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.