Margherita Barié, along with Giulia Panigazzi, co-authored the article about:

• Proof of genuine use of a trademark must rely on concrete and objective evidence
• Evidence based on probabilities or presumptions is not admissible
• It is sufficient to demonstrate an unequivocal link between the products listed on the invoices and those actually bearing the trademark

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in July 2025. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com

Margherita Barié, along with Giulia Panigazzi, co-authored the article about:

• The reputation of a trademark can be proven through various forms of evidence, with no strict requirement for quantitative data
• It is sufficient to prove reputation in a single member state
• A lower degree of similarity is required to assess unfair advantage based on the reputation of an earlier mark under Article 8(5), provided that the public perceives a link between the marks

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in April 2025. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com

Margherita Barié, along with Giulia Panigazzi, co-authored the article about the European Union legal updates: case law analysis and intelligence.

• The different types of marks reproducing the same sign can co-exist as long as each mark meets the requirements specific to each type
• The possibility for proprietors of collective marks to rectify irregularities by amending the regulations of use does not constitute a violation of the principle of equal treatment.
• A collective mark will not be considered misleading simply because the regulations governing its use include specific conditions regarding the quality of the goods and services protected

Margherita Barié, along with Giulia Panigazzi, co-authored the article about the European Union – legal updates: case law analysis and intelligence.

• Goods or services are not regarded as being similar to, or dissimilar from, each other on the grounds that they appear in the same or different Nice classes
• That virtual goods may depict, emulate the functions or be the virtual equivalent of real-world goods is not in itself sufficient to establish identity or similarity to real-world counterparts
• When the comparison of goods and services involves virtual goods, this implies the application of similarity criteria in novel situations that for now cannot be regarded as well known and must be supported by substantive evidence

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in September 2024. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com

Margherita Barié, along with Giulia Panigazzi, co-authored the article about the European Union, legal updates about case law analysis and intelligence

• The EUIPO Cancellation Division held that black verbal elements on gold/pink wine bottles – particularly the word “SENSI” – were sufficient to make the 3D sign as a whole distinctive

• Assessment of distinctiveness of a 3D mark must be based on the overall impression of the combination of the shape and the elements to which it extends, in relation to the goods in question, including verbal and/or figurative elements

• The ruling indicates that when the size of the verbal element included in a 3D trademark is big enough to be clearly identified as distinctive and has a sufficient impact on the overall impression of the sign, it makes the 3D sign as a whole distinctive

Margherita Barié, along with Giulia Panigazzi, co-authored the article about  European Union - Legal updates: case law analysis and intelligence.

• A position mark is distinctive when it deviates significantly from the sector’s customary practices or usages
• The average consumer does not usually assume the origin of goods based on the shape and/or position of a sign, in the

             absence of further graphic/textual elements

• Market customs, the existence of counterfeiters and previous EUIPO practice are irrelevant for the purpose of

             determining the distinctiveness of a position mark

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in (05/2024). For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com

Giulia Panigazzi, along with Margherita Barié, co-authored the article “General Court provides guidance on what constitutes proof of reputation of earlier mark” published on WTR Daily.

• In assessing the reputation of an earlier mark in the European Union, the evidential value of a document varies depending on whether the period covered is close to or distant from the filing date of the later mark
• Scientific or public-interest press resulting from independent research has evidential value in itself, while evidence consisting of promotional press shall be supported by proof of dissemination
• Presence on the Internet, through websites or social media, may contribute to the reputation of a mark when it is supported by independent data and information on the users and their activity on such platforms

In Atomico Investment Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Case T‑98/23, 28 February 2024), the General Court has ruled against Atomico Investment Holdings Ltd (‘the applicant’), owner of the earlier ATOMICO trademarks, in favour of Augusto Gomes Tominaga and his application for the following EU trademark…

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in (month/year). For further information, please go towww.worldtrademarkreview.com

Giulia Panigazzi, along with Margherita Barié, co-authored the article Battle of the dachshunds: figurative and word elements of composite marks may be co-dominant published on WTR Daily. In the assessment of similarity, the figurative element of a composite mark may be considered to be as distinctive and dominant as the word element. On 25 October 2023 in Case T‑773/22, the General Court ruled in favour of Italian clothing company Harmont & Blaine SpA, upholding the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO.

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in (month/year). For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com