Breaking NewsLaw.com and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Friday Feb. 26 9 PM US EST to Saturday Feb. 27 6 AM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.

 

EU Court Rules Gillette 'Sensor' Razor Trademark Not Exclusive

The European Union's highest court ruled Thursday a Finnish company can use Gillette Co.'s trademark razor system to market its own shaving products. The Luxembourg-based Court of Justice said a complaint filed by Gillette Group Finland, a subsidiary of the U.S. company, was unjustified, saying other companies, including LA-Laboratories Ltd. Oy in Finland, could sell razor blades that are compatible with the Gillette "Sensor" razors.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The European Union’s highest court ruled Thursday a Finnish company can use Gillette Co.’s trademark razor system to market its own shaving products. The Luxembourg-based court said a complaint filed by Gillette Group Finland, a subsidiary of the U.S. company, was unjustified saying other companies, including LA-Laboratories Ltd. Oy in Finland, could sell razor blades which are compatible with the Gillette “Sensor” razors. “Without being the owner of a trademark, a third party may use it in order to indicate the intended purpose of a product which it markets,” the court said. LA-Laboratories sells razor blades under the name “Parason Flexor” with a sticker saying “All Parason Flexor and Gilette Sensor handles are compatible with this blade.” Gillette claimed this was a breach of trademark laws, and gave the impression to consumers that the Parason Flexor products were licensed by Gillette. “The fact that a third party uses a trademark of which it is not the owner in order to indicate the intended purpose of its product does not necessarily mean that it is presenting that product as being of the same quality as, or having equivalent properties to, those of the product bearing the trademark,” the court said. The court made clear however that the use of another company’s trademark must be made in a way which does not take advantage of its distinctive character, nor that it gives the impression that the other product is an imitation or replica. The case now goes back to the Finnish Supreme Court, which referred it to the EU’s Court of Justice. Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Trending Stories

 

Featured Product

Global Briefing

A weekly, curated selection of our international content from around the globe, across the business of law, in-house, regulatory, technology and more, with expert insights from our senior editors.

Learn More

More from ALM

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Privacy Policy

About Us / Contact Us / Site Map / Advertise With Us/ Customer Service / Terms of Service/ FAQ / Privacy Policy

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.