I wonder if this is a Wunderbaum

The Court of First Instance, dismissing a Community trade markapplicant's appeal against the decision to allow an oppositionin part, affirms that the public's recognition of the opponent'searlier Community trade mark may be assessed in relation tothe degree of recognition achieved by that mark through itsclose similarity to an earlier national registered trade markbelonging to the opponent.     

声誉商标问题研究——兼评欧盟法院第C-252/07号初步裁定

因特尔公司是在英国注册的国内文字商标“INTEL”的持有者,认为英国CPM有限责任公司在英国注册的“INTELMARK”国内文字商标的使用将不公平地利用在先商标的显著性、声誉或者对该显著性或声誉产生有害的影响,亦或可能达到这样的程度.因特尔公司请求英国注册商标局宣告“INTELMARK”商标无效.欧盟法院做出初步裁定,认定“INTELMARK”商标的使用不足以构成对“INTEL”损害.     

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail

Legal context: Trade mark oppositions are routinely filed by brand owners againstan offending application or registration in either a pre-grantor a post-grant procedure before the respective national trademark office, but in Japan, there are several nuanced trade markopposition practice differences that should not be taken forgranted. Key issues: In light of persisting and recent abysmal trade mark opponentsuccess rates, favourable trade mark invalidation appeal (IA)data, and the inherent procedural handicaps against opponentsin Japan's current trade mark opposition system, Trade markowners would be better served by using Japan's trade mark IAprocedures to police against conflicting trade marks in Japanand not mechanistically file oppositions in Japan as one couldin other important trade mark jurisdictions like the USA orEurope. Practical significance: Japan's trade mark opposition and IA procedures offer complementaryoptions to police against conflicting trade marks so choosingthe right procedure is critical to its achieving the mission'ssuccess in curbing competitors' marks in the world's secondlargest free market economy.     

Strong trade marks and the likelihood of confusion in European law

Legal context. One of the fundamental assumptions of trade marklaw is that provision should be made to prevent the registrationor commercial exploitation of trade marks that are likely tobe confused with earlier marks. The justification for this assumptionis however unclear. Is it to protect the expectation of itsowner that a trade mark will provide a comfort zone, an areawithin which other traders simply may not enter? Is it to encourageinvestment in the development of a relationship between thetrade mark owner and his prospective customers by offering interference-freemarketing opportunities? Is it to protect the efficiency ofthe market by facilitating the making of decisions by consumersas to which product or process they wish to purchase? Or isit to protect the vulnerable consumer against the personal consequencesof his inattention or inability to discern the differences betweenproducts or services? Key points. This article examines the development of Europeanlaw relating to the protection of strong trade marks, thosewhich are highly distinctive or well known, against similarmarks that may or may not be likely to cause consumer confusion.It demonstrates the manner in which the European Court of Justiceseeks to address the likelihood of confusion in terms whichappear to draw more from legal abstractions than from marketrealities. After giving a favourable review of the controversialdecision of that court in the PICARO/PICASSO case, the articlelists further issues which European trade mark litigation hasso far failed to address. Practical significance. Armed with an understanding of the principlesemployed by the European Court of Justice, trade mark proprietorsin Europe will obtain a better appreciation of the strategiesto be used in either challenging competitors' marks in courtor adopting commercial measures to combat them.     

A Case for Applying the Theoretical Semiotics in the Practice of Trade Mark Law

The application of semiotics in trade mark law is an interdisciplinary endeavour in its infancy. The author traces its genesis in recent years and situates it within the context of general theoretical approaches, in particular of an interdisciplinary kind, appearing in the trade mark law literature in the past. The purposes for which such theories are applied, and questions of methodology arising from this, are examined. In particular, it is observed that semiotic theory has, by and large, been used for the purpose of debating legal policy in trade mark law (especially in the United States), and that this has given rise to argument about the extent to which semiotic theory can exert any normative force of its own upon the law. This article offers a different perspective. It is sought to demonstrate the usefulness of theoretical semiotics in solving trade mark law questions in practice. The author emphasises that this involves no threat to orthodox legal problem-solving methodology (whatever one may think of the orthodoxy), and in particular does not require the normative use of semiotic theory. Taking as a starting point the concept of ‹trade mark use’, and having regard to trade mark law and literature in Europe, the United States and Australia, the author proceeds to demonstrate the proposed approach by reference to some current problems in trade mark infringement.     

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.     

CFI upholds 'compulsory licences' of Green Dot trade mark

The European Commission was justified under competition lawin restricting the terms of trade mark licences for the GreenDot trade mark and, contrary to the view of the owner, thisdid not constitute a ‘compulsory licence’ of themark.     

Trade marks are 'possessions', as are applications

In a landmark judgment, the Grand Chamber of the European Courtof Human Rights (ECHR) partially reversed an earlier decisionof the Second Section of that Court of October 2005 and extendedthe protection of fundamental property rights under Article1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rightsto trade mark applications.     

Hong Kong follows ECJ's 'genuine trade mark use' approach

In two applications for revocation of the two Regal trade marks,the Hong Kong Trade Marks Registry recognized trans-shipmentof goods through Hong Kong by an importer and manufacturer asbeing sufficient to establish use of a trade mark under section52(3) of the Trade Mark Ordinance; however, the use of the markmust be in the form as registered or in a form which differsin elements which do not alter the distinctive character ofthe mark and would require use of any prominent devices withinthe mark.     

Comparative advertising and trade mark infringement: some guidance from the Netherlands

A recent decision of one of the five Dutch Appeal Courts hasclarified the relationship between trade mark law and advertisinglaw, holding that a trade mark owner cannot successfully accumulatetrade mark and advertising claims: where publicity complieswith the standards of advertising law, such use cannot thusamount to trade mark infringement.     

Advocate General says comparative advertising is not a matter of trade mark law

According to Advocate General Mengozzi, trade mark infringementis not relevant in assessing the legality of a third party'suse of an identical trade mark or similar sign in comparativeadvertising, but such advertising is governed exhaustively byArticle 3a of the Misleading Advertising Directive (84/450),as amended by the Comparative Advertising Directive (97/55)(‘CAD’).     

Is consent required to use registered trade marks on model replica cars?

A car manufacturer that is a proprietor of a trade mark registeredfor toys cannot prohibit use by a third party of its trade markon model replica cars unless such use affects the functionsof the trade mark or takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimentalto, the distinctive character or repute of the mark.     

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.     

Bothered by Bovemij?

A trade mark which is not inherently distinctive must acquiredistinctive character throughout a member state to be registered;where a member state (or the Benelux) is divided linguisticallyand a mark lacks distinctiveness in one language, but not another,it is only necessary to show sufficient distinctiveness in thelinguistic area where it is not distinctive.     

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.     

Registration of terms borrowed from another language

In answer to a question referred by a Spanish Court in a disputeas to the validity of the Spanish trade mark MATRATZEN, theEuropean Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that trade mark ownersare not precluded by Article 3(1)(b) or (c) of the Trade MarksDirective (Council Directive 89/104) from registering in oneMember State a term borrowed from another language, unless itcan be demonstrated that relevant public in the Member Statein which registration is sought are capable of identifying themeaning of the term.     

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.     

Article 81 is a defence to a plea of trade mark infringement

The Court of Appeal in Sportswear considered the interactionbetween the EU principle of free movement of goods and respectfor trade marks rights. In overturning the decision of Mr JusticeWarren to strike out an Article 81 defence to trade mark infringement,the court found that there was a sufficient nexus between theArticle 81 defence and the trade mark infringement claim.     

Spanish court rules in 'Accessorize' trade marks case

The Barcelona Court of First Instance No. 1 found in favourof the claimants, owners of the famous registered trade mark‘Accessorize’ in their action for trade mark infringement,trade mark cancellation, unfair competition, and damages inrespect of the use by the defendants of the Accessori, Mr Accessoriand Accessori trade marks.