Waxy.org has used Google to compile a list of the most frequently mispelled, uh, misspelled words on the Internet.  Via Kottke.org.

EEC Advocate General Jacobs has issued an opinion disagreeing with a Court of First Instance decision, recommending that OHIM reject a trademark application filed by the Wrigley company for the mark DOUBLEMINT, on the grounds that it is descriptive, either of a gum which contains two types of mint, or of a gum which has, uh, double the normal amount of mint.

AG Jacobs distinguished this from his previous opinion in BABY-DRY where he found that the term was registrable for diapers because:

“Whilst each of the two words might form part of expressions used in everyday speech to designate the function of babies nappies, their syntactically unusual juxtaposition was not a familiar expression in English, either for designating nappies or for describing their essential characteristics.”

DOUBLEMINT did not have syntactically unusual juxtaposition.  MINTDOUBLE would have.  In finding DOUBLEMINT unregistrable, AG Jacobs cited the common rationale for barring registrability to descriptive terms, namely, as the Germans put it, “freihaltebedurfnis,” the need to keep free [for other merchants in the trade to use].

In contrast, the term BABY-DRY “is not suitable, in the ordinary language of trade, as a designation of characteristics of the product in question” and therefore there was no public interest in preventing its monopolization.

Wrigley possibly could have overcome the freihaltebedurfnis argument with a better showing of secondary meaning.  It did proffer registrations it held for the mark in most EEC countries.  However, these registrations were discounted by the AG, in part, because they covered stylized or design versions of the mark, and thus didn’t prove registrability of the word mark alone.

AG Opnion in OHIM v. Wrigley, Case C-191/01 P here.  Court of First instance decision here.  BABY-DRY cite is Judgment of 20 September 2001 in Case C-383/99 P Procter & Gamble v OHIM [2001] ECR I-6251

ADDENDUM:  Amadeu Abril i Abril correctly took me to task for the first version of this piece.  This was an AG Opinion, not a decision of the ECJ.  I had incorrectly stated that the AG “reversed” a lower court decision – he can’t – he can merely recommend that the ECJ reverse the decision.  His opinion carries great weight but the ECJ is not bound to follow him.  In other words, it is conceivable the ECJ can ultimately find DOUBLEMINT to be registrable. 

Here is the weakness and strength of blogging – quck and easy to make mistakes and corrections.

For those of you planning to attend the INTA meeting in Amsterdam in May, but who haven’t booked a room, there are still some rooms available through cheaphotels.com.  Here are 20 things to do in Amsterdam other than discussing trademark law.  Here is the Hip TravelGuide to Amsterdam.  Email me  if you have good ideas for stuff to do there.

This article  reports that Taiwan is likely to join the ranks of those countries which grant protection to sound marks.  The U.S. has done so for some time, starting in 1951 with the NBC chimes.  Other famous sound marks include the “Intel Inside” bah-buh-buh-bah! sound and the Merrie Melodies Looney Tunes jingle. For more on sound marks, here’s an article by Candida Hinton, and an international INTA survey.

Proving that even trademark officials can be confused, in the article mentioned above the head of the Taiwanese trademark office is asked to give examples of sound trademarks, and he refers to “the roaring lion at the beginning of every MIRAMAX movie.”

FT.Com article on a trade dispute between the U.S. and the EEC over reciprocal treatment of appellations of origin.  The U.S. charges that the EEC does not grant protection to terms such as IDAHO POTATOES equivalent to that granted by the U.S. to terms such as FRENCH COGNAC.

Yahoo has a new enhanced search page which acknowledges the different types of searches users conduct – “full text,” topical index, yellow page, and news.  I tested it out with some absolutely unique marks or mark plus descriptors (VEUVE CLICQUOT, ROLEX, SONY CAMCORDER), some generic terms, and some “common names” (DELTA, ROYAL, LLOYDS).  I felt that the “sponsored” hits overwhelmed the web results, sometimes pushing them off the screen.  That would be more appropriate for the yellow pages, where users expect display ads to supplement and visually overwhelm the bare bone listings.  The yellow page directory was much more effective than a web search engine for local-oriented inquiries such as ARMONK PIZZA.  It is still hard to efficiently identify, for example, the places that sell a HP Printer near me. 

p.s. Typo-squatting does not appear to be a problem using these search engines.

More info from Yahoo here.

The Dow Jones wire is reporting that Ty’s (maker of Beanie Babies) petition for cert has been rejected in the BARGAINBEANIES.COM case, so this Seventh Circuit decision on the fair use of a famous trademark in a domain name stands.

I just received an email request from Bangladesh asking if he could have the Bangladesh MECCA COLA rights.  Resisting the temptation to ask for an upfront cash payment, I directed him here.

Explanation to those just joining us:  because the Google gods love blogs, my site is one of the first non-Arabic sites appearing in a Google search for MECCA COLA, as a result of my running several pieces on it.