Rome    Reggio Calabria     New York     Toronto    London

Internationalization

"Zagamilaw" International Law Firm, with its offices in New York, Toronto and London and thanks to the collaboration with its correspondent Partners, offers its activity of international consultancy and legal assistance both towards Italian clients living abroad and foreign clients living in Italy.

CONTINUE READING
Rome

Why choose Zagamilaw

Our team is composed by young, competent and motivated people that would be able to give you suggestions about every aspect of your matter. When we are engaged by a client for a legal case, the same client and the same case become to us absolutely important, in fact every professional of Zagamilaw will constantly assist you with the aid and supervision of the Firm's founder Lawyer Paolo Zagami

CONTINUE READING
Reggio Calabria

Recruiting

"Zagamilaw" International Law Firm, with its offices in New York, Toronto and London and thanks to the collaboration with its correspondent Partners, offers its activity of international consultancy and legal assistance both towards Italian clients living abroad and foreign clients living in Italy.

CONTINUE READING
New York

Feedback

“Zagamilaw is a fast growing and international business oriented law firm which offers assistance on all legal aspects of Italian residential and commercial real estate transaction and has been appointed between the Top 5 Italian Law firm for the Real Estate sector." - Corporate International Magazine

CONTINUE READING
Toronto City

International Tax Planning

The International Law Firm "Zagamilaw" is able to assist and advise companies and businesses wishing to implement an efficient international tax planning through proper allocation in different countries of their income derived from investment and management functions of the group, taking into account the different tax regimes and different tax rates adopted by each member, according to a general principle of legal supremacy of internal rules than those of other countries, subject to the existence of international agreements that address conflicts of imputation or double taxation.

CONTINUE READING
London

Adidas may oppose the registration, as a Community mark, of parallel stripes placed on the side of sports shoes

15.02.2016 « Back

In 2009, Shoe Branding Europe, a Belgian company, filed an application for registration of the mark reproduced below on the left with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) for shoes. Sports company adidas opposed registration of that mark, relying among other things on one of the marks reproduced below on the right: 

After OHIM dismissed the opposition, adidas instituted proceedings before the General Court seeking annulment of OHIM’s decision. By judgment of 21 May General Court upheld the action brought by adidas, taking the view that OHIM had been incorrect in finding that the marks were visually dissimilar when the overall impression produced by the marks was, to a certain extent, similar given that there were elements clearly common to the two marks (parallel sloping stripes, equidistant, of the same width, contrasting with the base colour of the shoe, placed on the outside of the shoe). Not satisfied with the General Court’s judgment, Shoe Branding Europe lodged an appeal before the Court of Justice.

In its order of 17 February of Justice upholds the General Court’s judgment. The Court of Justice notes, among other things, that the General Court did not contradict itself in finding that

OHIM had not provided a proper statement of reasons for its findings on the similarity of the signs at issue, since the minor differences existing between them (i.e., the different length of the stripes resulting from the difference in angle) would not influence the overall impression produced by them on account of the presence of wide sloping stripes on the side of the shoe.

The Court further holds that since the General Court held that the differences between two and three stripes and in the length of the stripes were not sufficient to affect the similarities arising from the configuration of the signs at issue, it did conduct an overall assessment and, therefore, did not err in law.