1 / 37

Evolution of EC and UK case law: relevance to HKSAR

Evolution of EC and UK case law: relevance to HKSAR. Mike Reynolds Principal Hearing Officer with UK Trade Marks Registry. 4 February 2005. TRADE MARK LAW IN EUROPE AND THE UK. National laws of Member States based on the European Community Directive

jania
Download Presentation

Evolution of EC and UK case law: relevance to HKSAR

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evolution of EC and UK case law: relevance to HKSAR Mike Reynolds Principal Hearing Officer with UK Trade Marks Registry 4 February 2005

  2. TRADE MARK LAW IN EUROPE AND THE UK National laws of Member States based on the European Community Directive In terms of the mandatory provisions of the Directive all Member States operate on the basis of harmonised law Community Trade Mark (CTM) is subject to its own Regulation but in key absolute ground areas mirrors the Directive provisions Likewise in relation to relative ground issues save that such matters are left to opposition rather than being dealt with at the examination stage The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the final arbiter for both Directive and CTM Regulation provisions

  3. MAIN LEGAL INFLUENCES ON THE UK REGISTRY • Decisions of the European Court of Justice (binding) • Decisions of the UK Courts (binding) • Decisions of the Appointed Persons (persuasive) • Decisions of the European Court of First Instance (persuasive/of interest) • Decisions of the Community Trade Mark Office (of interest)

  4. MAIN BUSINESS INFLUENCES ON THE UK REGISTRY • Practices cannot be too far out of line with Europe • Competition from the CTMO • Need to consider the position of SMEs • Future of relative ground objections?

  5. POSITION IN HONG KONG • Stand-alone law • Provisions broadly the same as UK/Europe on most absolute and relative ground issues (but care needed in some areas) • Not subject to some of the external constraints that influence UK practice • Not bound by decisions of the ECJ……… • ……but can draw on guidance from ECJ and UK Courts • Can afford to react in a measured way

  6. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION • Problem areas • olfactory marks Mark described in the Sieckmann case as: “…..olfactory mark deposited with the Deutsches Patent-und Markenamt of the pure chemical substance methyl cinnamate (=cinnamic acid methyl ester), whose structural formula is set out below. Samples of this olfactory mark can also be obtained via local laboratories listed in the Gelbe Seiten (Yellow Pages) of Deutsche Telekom AG or, for example, via the firm E. Merck in Darmstadt. C6H5-CH = CHCOOCH3”

  7. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION ECJ’s answer The representation of a mark needs to be “clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective” In the case of an olfactory mark “the requirements of graphic representability are not satisfied by a chemical formula, by a description in written words, by the deposit of an odour sample or by a combination of those elements”.

  8. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION • colour marks (i) the Ty Nant blue bottle (for Class 32 goods) described as “a blue bottle of optical characteristics such that if the wall thickness is 3mm the bottle has, in air, a dominant wavelength of 472 to 474 nanometres, a purity of 44 to 48%, an optical brightness of 28 to 32%” Not accepted – because the particular hue had not been specified. Nor had an example of the colour been filed

  9. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION • colour marks (ii) the three dimensional shape of a washing powder tablet (Class 3) The mark was applied for with the claim that one half of the mark was in the colour yellow and the other half white. Not accepted - because the colour yellow had not been adequately defined (no colour sample deposited or Pantone or other reference supplied).

  10. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION • shape marks • the POLO caseMark filed as the three-dimensional shape of a piece of confectionery but without limitation as to size or colour • Hearing Officer allowed the application to proceed (on evidence) on a restriction to the particular size, shape and colour of the sweet in question • Held on appeal that this was not a limitation [S15 of Cap 559] but an impermissible attempt to amend the application [S46(4) of Cap 559]

  11. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION • Message from these cases • think carefully about how an unusual mark type is to be described on the application form • the ability to amend once an application has been filed is very restricted • avoid limiting marks to colour unless essential to the issue of registrability (because of the effect on infringement rights)

  12. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (1)Examination standard • In the wake of Baby-Dry: • it seemed that the threshold test had been set very low • as a consequence other traders would have to look to the ‘Exceptions to infringement’ provisions [Section 19 of Cap 559] as a defence for normal descriptive use • New Born Baby appeared to confirm that position

  13. BABY-DRY NEW BORN BABY ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (1)Examination standard • Effect on objection rates in UK

  14. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (1)Examination standard • Clarification since Baby-Dry: • confirmation of standard of test in Libertel • in particular the ECJ said:“It must be a stringent and full examination, in order to prevent trade marks from being improperly registered. As the Court has already held, for reasons of legal certainty and good administration, it is necessary to ensure that trade marks whose use could be successfully challenged before the courts are not registered.”

  15. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (2)Section 11(1)(b) – Non-conventional marks • Such as: • Shapes of goods • Packaging • Colours • Slogans • Sounds • Smells (if capable of being graphically represented at all) • Guidance in:Libertel, Linde and the various cases dealing with washing powder tablets involving Procter & Gamble and Henkel

  16. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (2)Section 11(1)(b) – Non-conventional marks • Consistent position adopted by the ECJ • such marks are in principle registrable • the legal test for distinctive character is the same for all types of marks • a stricter criteria should not be applied • but like other mark types non-conventional marks must denote the goods/services of a particular undertaking (i.e. must indicate trade origin)

  17. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (2)Section 11(1)(b) – Non-conventional marks • Consistent position adopted by the ECJ (cont’d) • distinctiveness must be assessed by reference to the goods/services and the perception of the relevant consumers • consumers do not react in the same way to these types of marks as they do to word or figurative marks • so for practical purposes it may be more difficult to establish distinctiveness for such marks

  18. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (2)Section 11(1)(b) – Non-conventional marks • Henkel "………… the relevant public's perception is not necessarily the same in relation to a three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape and colours of the product itself as it is in relation to a word or figurative mark consisting of a sign which is independent from the appearance of the products it denotes. Average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of products on the basis of their shape or the shape of their packaging in the absence of any graphic or word element and it could therefore prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark (see, to that effect, Linde, paragraph 48, and Case C218/01 Henkel [2004] ECR I0000, paragraph 52). 39. In those circumstances, the more closely the shape for which registration is sought resembles the shape most likely to be taken by the product in question, the greater the likelihood of the shape being devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. Only a trade mark which departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and thereby fulfils its essential function of indicating origin, is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of that provision (see, in relation to the identical provision in Article 3(1)(b) of First Directive 89/104, Henkel, paragraph 49)."

  19. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (2)Section 11(1)(b) – Non-conventional marks • Points for consideration • is it a shape which is markedly different from the shapes normally employed in relation to the goods in question? • has the applicant promoted the non-conventional mark as being a trade mark? • is it used with or without another mark? (though not conclusive, use with more obviously trade mark matter is likely to dilute the impact of the non-conventional mark whereas use on its own may enhance the prospects of consumers relying on it as an origin indicator) • has it been promoted independently of the other mark? • has the non-conventional mark been used across a range of products/models (cf the jeep radiator grille)? • has it been used across a range of different goods?

  20. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (2)Section 11(1)(b) – Non-conventional marks Key issue • the relevant question is not whether it would be recognised on being seen a second time • or whether it is simply different from other such signs in the marketplace • but whether it would convey trade mark significance to the average consumer

  21. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (3)Section 11(1)(b) – Conventional marks • Such as words and figurative marks • Guidance in two recent cases – ‘SAT2’ and Nichols • Confirmation that • 11(1)(b) is an independent ground of objection • it focuses on the perception of the consumer • the public interest underlying the provision is “….indissociable from the essential function of a trade mark”

  22. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (3)Section 11(1)(b) – Conventional marks ‘SAT2’ • Mark applied for in respect of satellite broadcasting services • Objected to on the basis that SAT meant satellite and numbers were commonly used in the telecommunications/broadcasting field • ECJ overturned CFI on the basis that the lower court had failed to consider the effect of the combination on the average consumer and that it was wrong under 11(1)(b) to consider whether the mark is capable of common use in trade (the latter being appropriate to 11(1)(c) • ECJ found that it was common in the sector to use descriptive word/numeral combinations as trade marks

  23. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (3)NICHOLS • Public interest does not figure in determining a surname’s distinctive character • The ECJ has said that such marks should not be refused to avoid the first applicant enjoying an unfair advantage • Another type of sign which may be used in a particular sector as trade marks • Cannot apply pre-determined criteria • But ECJ has not said what criteria should be applied other than that… • ……distinctiveness must be assessed according to the specific circumstances of the case • UK not yet finally decided its position • Too soon to say how the issue will play out here

  24. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (4)Section 11(1)(c) - word marks Key considerations • excludes from registration signs which from a consumer’s point of view designate one or more of the essential characteristics of goods/services (Doublemint, paragraphs 29 and 30) • public interest test in keeping descriptive signs and indications free for all (Doublemint, paragraph 31) • but the sign need not actually be in use at the time of application (Doublemint, paragraph 32 ) • it will be open to objection if it could be used for such a purpose (Doublemint, paragraph 32 ) • but must be on the basis of reasonable foreseeability not unfounded speculation (by analogy with Windsurfing Chiemsee at paragraph 37 indent 2)

  25. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (4)Section 11(1)(c) - word marks Key considerations (cont’d) • irrelevant that there may be other ways of designating the characteristic concerned or that there is ambiguity. “Exclusively” not to be read this way. (Doublemint, paragraphs 33 and 34 and Postkantoor, paragraph 57) • irrelevant whether the characteristic is commercially essential (Postkantoor, paragraph 102) • visual and aural impressions must be considered (Postkantoor, paragraph 99) - (but some care needed as the Court was not specifically asked to consider this point)

  26. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS (4)Section 11(1)(c) - word marks Key considerations (cont’d) • whole mark must be considered • it is not enough to say that individual components are open to objection • the word itself must be so (Baby-Dry, paragraphs 39 and 40) • but merely bringing together descriptive elements is not enough to avoid objection (Biomild, paragraph 39) • is there any unusual variation in syntax or meaning? (Baby-Dry, paragraph 43) • the issue is whether the whole adds up to more than the sum of the parts (Biomild, paragraph 41)

  27. RELATIVE GROUND ISSUES • Settled jurisprudence • Based on the case law from Sabel v Puma, Canon v MGM and Lloyd Schuhfabrik v Klijsen Handel • HK has adopted the global appreciation test from these cases • The test stresses the principle of interdependency between marks and goods/services

  28. RELATIVE GROUND ISSUES (cont’d) • ECJ has stressed the importance of identifying: • what are the distinctive/dominant elements of the marks and • how distinctive those elements are taken in the context of the mark as a whole • What is the net effect of the similarities and differences between the marks and the similarities and differences between the goods? Does it result in a likelihood of confusion? • More realistic reflection of how consumers behave in the marketplace • Allows HK to be broadly consistent with European/UK practice and case law

  29. OTHER ISSUES Precedents • UK Registry less favourably disposed to precedents than hitherto • Judicial authority against - see Madame and Treat cases and more recently the following from one of the UK’s Appointed Persons in Zurich Private Banking:“Finally, it must be appreciated that all assertions of inconsistency between acceptances and refusals within a national registry and all assertions of inconsistency between acceptances and refusals in different registries are, by their very nature, question-begging as to the correctness of each of the various acceptances and refusals that are brought into contention.”

  30. OTHER ISSUES Precedents (cont’d) • Developing jurisprudence means that past acceptances are not necessarily a good guide • Lower threshold test to start with • More marginal acceptances diminish the value of placing reliance on existing registrations (also the UK Office, for instance, has a published target to keep bad acceptances to less than 1% of the marks published in the Journal)

  31. OTHER ISSUES Precedents (cont’d) • Precedents are likely to have more impact if • Used sparingly • Are directly on point • Relate to the goods/services in issue

  32. OTHER ISSUES Disclaimers • UK position • Disclaimers are now voluntary • Unlike the position under the old law disclaimers now directly affect relative ground/infringement issues • Consequences of entering disclaimer considered in the Paco case • Admission by the proprietor that the disclaimed element is not by itself distinctive

  33. OTHER ISSUES Disclaimers (cont’d) • If the only component of an etm that is similar is disclaimed then it will not normally stand in the way of a later filing • But a Section 12 objection cannot be overcome by volunteering a disclaimer (because the scope of protection of the etm cannot be determined by an admission made by the later applicant) • CTMO understood to take the same line

  34. OTHER ISSUES Disclaimers (cont’d) • From a trade mark filing point of view • Don’t volunteer a disclaimer unless you have to • For absolute grounds purposes offering a disclaimer should not make any difference. Either a mark is registrable or it is not! • Occasionally a disclaimer may be offered to meet the needs of a co-existence agreement between trade mark owners (i.e. for relative ground purposes)

  35. OTHER ISSUES Colour claims • Said in the washing tablet case to be another form of limitation • But distinguishable from true limitations. • Merely a claim that colour is a feature not that it is essential to registrability • What is the effect of a colour limit? • Pink elephants and green grass • Consequential impact e.g. on infringement and series issues

  36. CONCLUSIONS • UK/Europe has now had 10 years’ experience of the new law • Sometimes a bumpy ride • Settled jurisprudence in many key areas… • …but more still to come • Considerable awareness of/interest in European and UK jurisprudence in HK • Likely to be areas of practice where local linguistic, cultural and social differences in HK may lead to different outcomes • Hope that both IPD and the profession in HK will see continuing benefit in keeping in touch with developments in Europe/UK

  37. Thank You!

More Related