Whose trade mark rights? What the Microsoft case means for trade mark owners

Legal context. The article considers the influence of the commissionruling in the Microsoft case, forcing Microsoft to use its WINDOWS-trademark for an ‘unbundled’ version of the program inthe light of the trade mark owner's properties rights. The scopeof these rights is determined by the function of the trade markand the rights that the trade mark laws confer to the ownerin case of infringement. Key points. Trade marks are protected as property rights undercommunity law. They are the embodiment of past investments andtransform the reputation of the owner into a bankable asset.Consumers rely on trade mark owners' control over quality. Thisis mirrored by the rights of the trade mark owner to stop interferencewith quality and image, in particular in the context of resaleof altered products. Any interference that would be considereda trade mark infringement if committed by a private party shouldbe considered an interference with the protected property rightif caused by a government agency. This interference is not justifiedby the public interest because trade mark rights also embodyimportant public interests. Practical significance. If the analysis proposed in the articleis followed, intellectual property rights have to be given greaterweight in shaping antitrust remedies.     

The Silicon Valley Media Law Blog

http://www.svmedialaw.com/ By Cathy Kirkman, 24 October 2004,California Archive (Thematic)   As the name suggests, the Silicon Valley Media Law Blog providesa commentary on media law developments in the US. In particular,it follows new legal decisions and legislation that might affectthose in the arena of music     

Three IP blogs

Lessig Blog By Lawrence Lessig United States of America Archivedback to August 2002 http://www.lessig.org/blog/ Techno Llama ByAndres Guadamuz Scotland Archived back to October 2004 http://technollama.blogspot.com/ Patently-O:Patent Law Blog By Dennis Crouch United States of America Archivedback to April 2005 http://patentlaw.typepad.com/  

Dishonestly and without due cause

Legal context: UK trade mark law was harmonised with the laws of other EU memberstates pursuant to the Trade Marks Directive (89/104/EEC) withthe coming into force of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Since then,the English courts have sought to absorb into English jurisprudencecontinental concepts of unfair competition, and a new code relatingto the use of another's trade mark in comparative advertising.Traditionally, the English approach has been more liberal andless protective of a trade mark owner's rights than that ofcontinental jurisdictions, but since 1994 the ECJ has been calledupon to provide frequent guidance on the interpretation of expressionssuch as the "essential function" of a trade mark and the "dutyto act fairly" in relation to the legitimate interests of thetrade mark proprietor. Key points: This article examines the way in which some recent decisionsof the ECJ have led to the English courts having greater regardto the property interests of the trade mark owner and less regardto the concepts of free market competition and consumer protection.In the recent High Court case of L'Oréal and others vBellure NV and others, Lewison J made findings of infringementunder s.10(1) and (3) Trade Marks Act 1994 where he found thatthere was "free riding" on the back of the reputation of certainof L'Oreal's trade marks without there being any evidence ofconfusion or association between the trade marks and the defendants'signs. Practical significance: For trade mark owners, this change in the approach of the Englishcourts opens up new opportunities to combat look-alike productsand comparative advertisements which take unfair advantage ofthe reputation of established marks.     

The irresistible force of freedom of speech meets the immovable object: trade mark law in South Africa

Legal context. The right of freedom of expression is a fundamentalright entrenched in the Bill of Rights incorporated in the SouthAfrican Constitution. While intellectual property rights donot enjoy this status, they are internationally recognised rightsgranted by a law of general application and may thus in termsof the Constitution limit the fundamental rights protected inthe Bill of Rights, and more particularly the right of freedomof expression. Where the enforcement of trade mark rights comes into conflictwith the right of freedom of expression, the two rights mustbe weighed up against one another and the competing interestsof the owner of the trade mark against the claim of expressionof a user without permission must be considered. The departurepoint of the weighing up process is that neither right is superiorto the other. Key points. This article discusses an action brought by SabmarkInternational, which claimed that Laugh It Off Promotions CCinfringed its registered trade mark BLACK LABEL in respect ofbeer by using a corruption of this mark with strong politicalundertones as ornamentation on T-shirts sold by it. It was claimedthat the offending use diluted Sabmark's registered trade mark.In an appeal, the Constitutional Court rejected the claim onthe basis that Sabmark had not shown that the offending usewas likely to cause economic damage to it. Practical significance. The case in effect equated trade markrights with rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and thusgave important recognition to intellectual property rights.It created a precedent in intellectual property law, if notin South African law in general, in that the constitutionalcourt overruled a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA)and in effect ruled that the SCA had not interpreted the relevantprovision of the Trade Marks Act correctly.     

Is there still a hole in this bucket? Confusion and misrepresentation in passing off

Legal context. Passing off is an evolving tort. There may beopportunities to expand the scope of the tort to capture activitiesthat have not previously amounted to passing off. Key points. In Arsenal v Reed, Aldous LJ suggested that thetime has come to abandon the label "passing off" and recognisea tort of "unfair competition". The implication is that certainactivities that would not previously have been censured by thecourts might now constitute passing off. This raises the questionof what circumstances might justify giving claimants greaterrights of action. This article explores the possibility of justifyinga claim in passing off where the misrepresentation does notcause confusion, and dilution of the claimant's trade mark isthe only damage caused. Practical significance. There is no doubt that passing off willevolve still further. The English judiciary is perhaps now moreconscious of the flexibility of passing off than at any timein the recent past. Ambitious – even adventurous –claims may have a chance of success.     

从商标抢注看商标法完善

在市场竞争日趋激烈的今天,商标抢注事件时有发生。商标抢注行为违背了商标法的立法宗旨、损害了商标在先使用者的利益和消费者的利益,违背了诚实信用原则,扰乱了正常的社会经济秩序。商标抢注问题亟需解决。本文对商标抢注现象产生的原因及其危害进行了分析,指出了现有立法的不足,并提出了完善我国商标法、制止恶意抢注商标行为的立法建议。     

'Trade mark use' in Europe: revisiting Arsenal in the light of Opel and Picasso

Legal context: The European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision in the case ofArsenal Football Club v. Reed led to uncertainty regarding thepractical scope of a trade mark proprietor's property rights. Key points: The uncertainty resulted from a failure of the ECJ to addressclearly the issue of what constitutes infringing trade markuse. The ECJ ignored the question of the High Court as to whetheruse of a trade mark as an indication of origin is necessaryfor establishing infringement. They instead established an ambiguousstandard for what constitutes infringing trade mark use, suggestingthat only use that jeopardises the essential function of a trademark is an infringing use. This ambiguity has had problematicimplications for subsequent interpretations of trade mark law,particularly in the Court of Appeal in Arsenal and the Houseof Lords in R v Johnstone. Two relatively new ECJ cases may help clarify the issue. InOPEL, the ECJ suggested that infringing use of a trade markmust be use that is perceived by the relevant public as a designationof origin. The Picasso decision limits the effect of the Arsenaldecision on the relevance of confusion in non-sale situationsto the facts of Arsenal. In particular, it stresses the pointthat when assessing likelihood of confusion in the context ofan opposition to an application for registration the court shouldfocus on the perception of the relevant public at the pointof sale. Practical significance: The benefit of these two cases is that they create some clarityfor legal practitioners and the Courts when addressing the questionof what constitutes infringing trade mark use.     

Inter Partes Proceedings and the Reform of the Community Trade Mark Implementing Regulation

Legal and practical context. Commission Regulation 1041/2005of 29 June 2005, which amends the Community Trade Mark ImplementingRegulation, entered into force on 25 July 2005. Substantialamendments are brought to inter partes proceedings, that isoppositions and applications in revocation or in invalidity,and appeal procedures. Key points. The rules governing the substantiation of the earlierrights and time limits are now stricter. Also, the new regimeaims at circumscribing the consequences of the rather broadinterpretation which the Court of First Instance gave over thelast two years to the notion of functional continuity betweenthe opposition division and the Boards of Appeal. Practical significance. The authors analyse the new provisionscontained in the Community Trade Mark Implementing Regulationin the light of the latest case law of the Court of First Instance,in order to provide practitioners with a simplified guide.     

Where trade marks reach the limits of their enforceability?

Trade Marks at the Limit is a volume edited by Jeremy Phillips,intellectual property consultant (Slaughter and May) and ProfessorialFellow (Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute). The core theme of the book is the balancing exercise betweenthe interests of trade mark proprietors and the interests ofcompetitors, business partners, like retailers, consumers, andthe     

Multimedia Works and Categorization in UK Copyright Law

‘A book may be good for nothing; or there may be onlyone thing in it worth knowing; are we to read it all through?’(Samuel Johnson) This section is dedicated to the review ofideas, articles, books, films and other media. It will includereplies (and rejoinders) to articles, the evaluation of newideas or proposals, and reviews of books and articles both directlyand indirectly related to intellectual property law.

Copyright Law in the Digital Society—The Challenges ofMultimedia By Tanya Aplin, 2005, Hart Publishing Price: £60,Hardback, ISBN: 1-84113-356-6, pp. 320   The protection of multimedia     

In Person

Arnaud Folliard-Monguiral is a lawyer in OHIM's Industrial PropertyLitigation Unit. He is the regular contributor, with David Rogers,of the JIPLP annual Community trade mark case law round up.JIPLP managed to catch up with him for long enough to ask afew questions... How did you first become interested in IP? When I was finishing my law studies in the early 90s, IP wasbeing revolutionized     

Don't be a Martyr to Res Judicata

The High Court rules that a party who unsuccessfully opposesa trade mark application cannot later re-challenge the validityof the same trade mark by way of defence to an infringementclaim.     

Significant 2005 case law on the Community trade mark from the Court of First Instance, the European Court of Justice and OHIM

Legal context. Each year the ECJ and CFI gives numerous judgmentsin trade mark matters that are of interest to trade mark practitionersthroughout Europe. This article identifies the most importantcases decided in 2005 relating to the major issues in trademark law. Key points. Issues covered relating to procedural questionsinclude the language regime, the duty of Boards of Appeal togive reasons for their decisions, the right of a party to beheard, etc. Numerous substantive issues are covered, relatingto both absolute and relative grounds. The article also containssome helpful annexes that set out some actual comparisons ofsigns and of goods & services that have been carried outby the Luxembourg courts.     

Trade mark use in transit: EU-phony or cacophony?

Legal context The present article discusses the opinion of Advocate-GeneralJacobs in Case C-405/05 Class International BV v Unilever NVand others, according to which trade mark owners cannot opposethe entry into the European Union of grey market non-Communitygoods placed in external transit, on the grounds of Article5(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, or any equivalent provision,as such entry does not constitute trade mark use. Key points We examine the consistency of this approach withprior case law of the European Court of Justice, namely in theCommission v France, Rioglass, The Polo/Lauren and Rolex casesand draw a parallelism with Council Regulation (EC) 1383/2003. Practical significance We conclude that trade mark owners shouldbe allowed to prohibit the placing in transit of goods whichwould infringe an intellectual property right under the lawof the transit country, unless the owner or consignor of thelitigious goods can undeniably prove that the goods are notdestined for the internal market. Stop press. At the end of the article the authors provide abrief analysis of the European Court of Justice's decision of18th October 2005 in this case.     

Coexistence in Community trade mark disputes: conditions and implications

Legal context. A defence based on coexistence has no legal basisin the Trade Mark Directive or in the Community Trade Mark Regulation.Still, a practical approach to Community trade mark conflictsrequires attention to the situation in the marketplace whereconflicting marks may be shown to coexist without any currentconfusion or dilution being reported. Key points. Trade mark coexistence may sometimes be persuasive,the strict requirements being laid down by the Community courts.Through a detailed review of the case-law of the Community courtsand OHIM's Boards of Appeal, this article explains the conditionsfor and the consequences of proving the coexistence of the conflictingmarks in cases based on likelihood of confusion or dilution. Practical significance. Consideration must also be given tothe effects of third parties' neighbouring marks which may diminishan earlier mark's distinctive character. Accordingly, this articlefurther addresses the issue of whether the scope of protectionof a mark may be damaged by the use of later marks in the lightof the ECJ Judgment in the preliminary ruling Case C-145/05Levi Strauss v Casucci Spa.     

A very short guide to an awful lot

Harmonised Trade Mark Law in Europe By Ulrich Hildebrandt 2005,Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag Price: 48, Hardback, ISBN: 3-452-25922-6. pp.150   Dr Ulrich Hildebrandt, a lawyer in private practice in Berlinand a lecturer at the Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf,has had an interesting and useful idea. In this book he hasproduced a compilation of the case law of the European Courtof Justice interpreting the Council Directive 89/104 to approximatethe laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (includingdecisions