1 / 24

Prof. Dr. Martin Senftleben VU University Amsterdam Bird & Bird, The Hague

European Parliament, 5 November 2013 Trademarks, Free Speech, Undistorted Competition. Prof. Dr. Martin Senftleben VU University Amsterdam Bird & Bird, The Hague. EU Trademark Law. Trade Mark Directive 89/104/EEC (1988) = 2008/95/EC (2008)

mlandry
Download Presentation

Prof. Dr. Martin Senftleben VU University Amsterdam Bird & Bird, The Hague

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. European Parliament, 5 November 2013Trademarks, Free Speech, Undistorted Competition Prof. Dr. Martin Senftleben VU University Amsterdam Bird & Bird, The Hague

  2. EU Trademark Law Trade Mark Directive 89/104/EEC (1988) = 2008/95/EC (2008) TMD Community Trade Mark Regulation 40/94 (1993) = 207/2009 (2009) CTMR

  3. Rationale of protection

  4. Market transparency • ensuring honest commercial practices • consumer protection and information • contribution to a functioning market proprietor competitor consumer

  5. EU Charter of Fundamental Rights • Art. 17(2): right to property ‘Intellectual property shall be protected.’ • Art. 11(1): freedom of expression and information ‘…shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas…’ • Art. 16: freedom to conduct a business ‘…in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices is recognised.’

  6. CJEU, Google/Louis Vuitton, Opinion AG Poiares Maduro ‘Nevertheless, whatever the protection afforded to innovation and investment, it is never absolute. It must always be balanced against other interests, in the same way as trade mark protection itself is balanced against them. I believe that the present cases call for such a balance as regards freedom of expression and freedom of commerce.’ (para. 102)

  7. Not only protection…

  8. Art. 5(1) TMD (mandatory) consumer protection only a few specific exceptions Art. 5(2) TMD (optional) protection of investment flexible ‘due cause’ defense Expansion of harmonized protection advertising quality control exclusive link with a sign creation of a brand image

  9. CJEU, L’Oréal/Bellure

  10. CJEU, L’Oréal/Bellure: relaxation of infringement criteria • ‘...where a third party attempts, through the use of a sign similar to a mark with a reputation, to ride on the coat-tails of that mark in order to benefit from its power of attraction, its reputation and its prestige, and to exploit, without paying any financial compensation and without being required to make efforts of his own in that regard, the marketing effort expended by the proprietor of that mark...’ (para. 49) • no damage required, free-riding sufficient

  11. CJEU, June 18, 2009, case C-487/07, L’Oréal/Bellure • ‘These functions include not only the essential function of the trade mark, which is to guarantee to consumers the origin of the goods or services, but also its other functions, in particular that of guaranteeing the quality of the goods or services in question and those of communication, investment or advertising.’ (para. 58) • recognition of further protected functions, in particular goodwill functions

  12. …but also freedoms

  13. ECJ, 17 March 2005, case C-228/03, Gillette/LA-Laboratories

  14. ECJ, 17 March 2005, case C-228/03, Gillette/LA-Laboratories • rationale underlying the limitation ‘…in order to provide the public with comprehensible and complete information as to the intended purpose of the product which it markets, that is to say as to its compatibility with the product which bears those trade marks.’ (para. 34)

  15. CJEU, June 12, 2008, case C-533/06, O2/Hutchison • O2: • registered bubbles as a trademark • Hutchison: • shows in advertising for telecom services black-and-white pictures of moving bubbles • compares prices of telecom services • not perceived as a source identifier by the public

  16. ECJ, 4 November 1997, case C-337/95, Dior/Evora

  17. CJEU, 22 September 2011, case C-323/09, Interflora/Marks & Spencer • Marks & Spencer • selects the trademark ‘Interflora’ and variants as search terms • sponsored search result: ‘M & S Flowers Onlinewww.marksandspencer.com/flowersGorgeous fresh flowers & plantsOrder by 5 pm for next day delivery’

  18. Sustainable system needed

  19. Due cause defence …same colours and letter type, but written as ‘E$$O’

  20. Art. 5(1) TMD (mandatory) consumer protection only a few specific exceptions Art. 5(2) TMD (optional) protection of investment flexible ‘due cause’ defense General application advertising quality control exclusive link with a sign creation of a brand image

  21. General application but with regard to all types of trademark claims (Art. 14(1) TMD; Art. 12(1) CTMR) not only with regard to marks with a reputation (Art. 10(2)(c) TMD; Art. 9(2)(c) CTMR)

  22. The end. Thank you! contact: m.r.f.senftleben@vu.nl

  23. Due cause defence • flexible rights require flexible limitations • tailor-made balancing • keeping pace with technical development: fast reaction to new forms of speech and new business models • MPI Overall Functioning Study, § 2.266 ‘…allow for flexibility not previously envisaged by legislation…’

  24. Due cause defence • implementation strategy? • MPI Overall Functioning Study, § 2.266 ‘…A possible legislative technique would be the combination of a general exception with specific examples…’

More Related