[pp.int.general] Fwd: [The IPKat] "They shall not pass": Maltese make a fake-trader cross

[Amelia Andersdotter]

a-haha. trademarks for the public good, yes.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[The IPKat] "They shall not pass": Maltese make a fake-trader 
cross
Date: 	Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:38:25 -0800 (PST)
From: 	Jeremy <jjip at btinternet.com>
Reply-To: 	jjip at btinternet.com
To: 	ipkat_readers at googlegroups.com



<https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-U41ZfoNN7cM/TW1z9trDD5I/AAAAAAAARd8/0Sqrpy8TFxI/s1600/They+shall+not+pass..jpg> 

/Cunningly disguised, the Maltese Customs officers could approach importers
of infringing goods without arousing any suspicions .../

*Who needs the Court of Justice of the European Union *to ponder over 
the question whether you can seize infringing goods in transit, when 
you've got the Maltese courts to rely on?  The IPKat has learned how, 
last Thursday, the Maltese courts handed down a decision in a 
cross-border seizure case (regarding trade marked pharmaceuticals) 
against the defendant.  What were the facts?  It seems that the 
defendant was transporting the goods between India and Libya, and 
therefore between non-EU member states. The defendant argued that goods 
were not destined for local market and did not therefore infringe any 
trade mark right in Malta.  After all, if there is going to be an 
infringement, there has to be some use in the course of commerce in that 
country, and it is well known that external transit does not amount to 
use in the course of trade.  In other words, the defendant raised all 
arguments as per /Montex /and a whole fleet of other ECJ and UK case law 
(as cited and applied by Mr Justice Kitchin in /Nokia/).

However, in a judgment delivered a week or two after the *AG’s opinion 
on /Nokia/ 
<http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/02/faking-it-or-beyond-suspicion.html>* 
was issued, the Maltese judge stated that the interpretation of whether 
the goods are infringing or not could be assessed by examining the Cross 
Borders Measures legislation, and need not be examined in the light of 
the Trade Marks Act (and Regulation). He said that the Cross Borders 
Measures legislation was a stand-alone piece of legislation, which did 
not require an interpretation of trade mark infringement in order to be 
operative.

Thank you, Jeanine Rizzo (Associate, Fenech & Fenech Advocates), for 
this fascinating news.  Jeanine has offered some tasty chunks of 
translated judgment which the Kats excitedly await.

How to make a Maltese Cross *here 
<http://killingthejoke.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-do-you-make-maltese-cross.html>*, 
*here <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/maltese-cross-tattoos.html>*, 
*here <http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5708>*, *here 
<http://www.citizen.co.za/citizen/content/en/citizen/confidential-by-girl-friday?oid=175218&sn=Detail&pid=829&Maltese-cross>*
How to make a Venetian Blind *here 
<http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111053624AAs9tKz>*
How to make a Swiss Roll *here 
<http://www.ehow.com/how_2306033_make-swiss-roll.html>*

--
Posted By Jeremy to The IPKat 
<http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/03/they-shall-not-pass-maltese-make-fake.html> 
on 3/01/2011 10:38:00 PM --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the IPKat's 
email readers' group.
For forthcoming events, check the IPKat's sidebar at <a 
href="http://www.ipkat.com>www.ipkat.com</a>
To unsubscribe, email the IPKat <a 
href="mailto:ipkat_readers+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com">here</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20110301/1bc6bea3/attachment-0001.html>