David Llewelyn
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 24

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE MARK LAW 2005-2006 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 87 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

David Llewelyn Head of IP, White & Case (London) Director, IP Academy, Singapore Visiting Professor, King’s College, London. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE MARK LAW 2005-2006. TRADE MARKS – APPELLATE SYSTEM and ART. 234 EC. OHIM Board of Appeal. References from National Courts.

Download Presentation

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE MARK LAW 2005-2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Recent developments in eu trade mark law 2005 2006

David Llewelyn

Head of IP, White & Case (London)

Director, IP Academy, Singapore

Visiting Professor, King’s College, London

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE MARK LAW 2005-2006


Trade marks appellate system and art 234 ec

TRADE MARKS – APPELLATE SYSTEM and ART. 234 EC

OHIM Board of Appeal

References from National Courts

Court of First Instance

ECJ


Areas of key developments

AREAS OF KEY DEVELOPMENTS

  • Absolute grounds for refusal of registration

  • Relative grounds for refusal of registration

  • Revocation

  • Infringement


Absolute grounds distinctiveness descriptiveness the story so far

Focus on common language ?

‘BABY-DRY’(ECJ)

Focus on keeping marks available for common use ?

‘DOUBLEMINT’(ECJ)

ABSOLUTE GROUNDS Distinctiveness / Descriptiveness… The Story So Far


And also

AND ALSO…

Combinations of descriptive words need to create a phonetic or visual impression to be held distinctive

‘POSTKANTOOR’

Public interest considerations require that distinctive signs are “not unduly restricted” and descriptive signs are “kept free for all”

‘SAT.1’


Absolute grounds distinctiveness descriptiveness new developments

ABSOLUTE GROUNDS Distinctiveness / Descriptiveness… NEW DEVELOPMENTS

Can the elements of a composite mark have distinctive character in their own right?

Nestlé SA v. Mars UK Ltd.

Public perception of the mark is of two non distinctive words

BioID v. OHIM


And also1

AND ALSO…

Can a mark be registered in a Member State if it is descriptive of the relevant product or service in the language of another Member State?

‘MATRATZEN’ (AG Jacobs)


Shape marks

“SHAPE MARKS”

  • Assessment of distinctiveness of 3-D shape marks governed by the same criteria which applies to other marks

  • Purpose of Article 3(1)(e) of the Directive / Article 7(1)(e) of the CTMR is to prevent trade mark proprietors holding a monopoly in relation to technical solutions

  • Shape marks cannot acquire distinctiveness through use

  • Shape will not fall outside Article 3(1)(e) or Article 7(1)(e) if its technical function can be achieved through another shape / design

  • PHILIPS


Also rejected

ALSO REJECTED…


Developments new failures

DEVELOPMENTS(NEW FAILURES)

“Seen as a whole the mark applied for fails to differentiate itself materially from the ordinary shape of the containers concerned, which are commonly used in trade, but instead appears to be a variant of those shapes”

EUROCERMEX SA v. OHIM


Other failure

Other failure

  • CFI:

  • Advertising costs and market shares: not detailed;

  • No data re total sales on relevant market nor competitors;

  • Survey only showed awareness of name not of shape.

AG Colomer:

Appeal should be dismissed

ECJ cannot revise CFI’s assessment of facts


Other failures

Other failures….

NO

DEUTSCHE SISI-WERKE GMBH v. OHIM (ECJ)

YES !

NESTLÉ WATERS SA v. OHIM (CFI)


Revocation on grounds of deception

REVOCATION ON GROUNDS OF DECEPTION

Will consumers be confused as to whether this is a medicinal product?

Invalidity and revocation presuppose ACTUAL DECEIT or SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS RISK OF DECEPTION

CLINIQUE

Reasonably circumspect consumers deemed to know that there is not a link between size of publicity markings relating to an increase in a product’s quantity and the size of that increase

MARS


Deceived

DECEIVED?…

The AP to the ECJ:

Can a sign consisting of a person’s name validly be registered or used as a trade mark by others if that registration or use causes the relevant public erroneously to think that such person is in some way connected with the business that owns and uses the mark?

ELIZABETH FLORENCE EMANUEL v. CONTINENTAL SHELF


Recent developments in eu trade mark law 2005 2006

ECJ:

  • AP is Judicial Authority within the meaning of Art. 234 EC Treaty;

  • Actual deceit or sufficiently serious risk of confusion needed.

  • Average consumer might be influenced in purchasing “Elizabeth Emanuel” garment by imagining she was involved in design but quality and characteristics of it remain guaranteed by new owner;

  • TM corresponding to name (of designer and first manufacturer) may not by reason of that particular feature alone be refused registration or revoked on ground of deception, in particular where goodwill was assigned together with business.


Likelihood of confusion confusingly confusing

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION:Confusingly confusing……

“There may be a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public where the contested sign is composed by juxtaposing the company name of another party and a registered mark which has normal distinctiveness and which, without alone determining the overall impression conveyed by the composite sign, still has an independent distinctive role therein’

MEDION


Likelihood of confusion likely to be confused

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION:Likely to be confused?

MUEHLENS v. OHIM

v.

=

CFI

Phonetic similarity outweighed by conceptual and visual differences

AG Colomer

Urgent to improve harmonisation

Landgericht Hamburg:

Opposite conclusion

ECJ

Appeal dismissed. No comment on national court.


Relative grounds for refusal likelihood of confusion

RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSALLikelihood of confusion

PICARO

“Conceptual differences can in certain circumstances counteract the visual and phonetic similarities between the signs concerned”

CLAUDE RUIZ-PICASSO & OTHERS v. OHIM


Infringement

INFRINGEMENT

GILLETTE v. LA LABORATORIES OY

‘All Parason FLEXOR® and all Gillette SENSOR® HANDLES

are COMPATIBLE with this razor blade’ !


Recent developments in eu trade mark law 2005 2006

AND

  • LandgerichtNürnberg-Fürth:

  • Does use of “Opel-lighting” logo (registered, inter alia, for toys) on remote control model cars (sold under defendant’s own marks) constitute use/infringement?

  • AG RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER:

  • BMW, Gillette, Arsenal and Budweiser apply.

  • Autec models of Opel cars do not hamper origin function of trade mark Opel. This would only be the case where Autec product gave the impression of a "material link“, such as a licence or endorsement, with Opel itself.

  • ADAM OPEL AG v. AUTEC AG


Infringement the importance of consumer s perception

INFRINGEMENTThe importance of consumer’s perception

LEVI STRAUSS & CO. v. CASUCCI SPA

ECJ:

Infringement to be determined on the basis of public’s perception of trade mark at the time the use of similar mark began.

Order cessation of use not appropriate when infringed mark has lost distinctiveness following inactivity of proprietor;


Infringement and parallel imports

INFRINGEMENT AND PARALLEL IMPORTS

Goods in transit but which are not cleared by customs have not been “imported” into the EU

No free circulation no infringement

CLASS INTERNATIONAL v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY & OTHERS


Retail services

RETAIL SERVICES

Protection for retail services… a breakthrough

PRAKTIKER BAU UND HEIMWERKERMARKTE AG


The end

THE END

Thank you


  • Login