Keywords,case law and the Court of Justice: the need for legislative intervention in modernising European trade mark law

Recent preliminary references to the CJEU on online keyword advertising and registered trade mark infringement have exposed the challenges facing EU registered trade mark law in its response to new technologies. These cases and the challenges they pose provide a timely prism through which to examine the European trade mark law-making process and the role of the CJEU within that process. This article will employ an analysis of the way in which the CJEU has developed certain key new aspects of the law on ‘infringing use’ to explore concerns over the CJEU's role and approach. It will be argued that, driven by policy considerations, the CJEU has acted creatively to develop the law of infringement in ways that cannot be sustained by the TMD and CTMR and which are likely to cause increasing uncertainties going forward. With the European Commission currently considering reform of Trade Marks Directive 2008/95/EC and Community Trade Mark Regulation 207/2009/EC, this paper will argue that there is a need for more comprehensive and forward-looking legislative intervention than has yet been proposed and that such intervention will be essential to restoring balance in the European trade mark law-making process.     

Trade marks plus? the role of trade marks in the global economy and the danger of over-protection

This article examines the economic role of the trade mark, both as a structuring device and as a means of adding value to products. It shows how its role as a flexible structuring device that provides a distinct focus for goodwill derives from the special meaning of the term “origin” or “trade origin” in trade mark law, this being what a trade mark is supposed to indicate. Firms can control the identity that a trade mark signifies and confers on the products with which it is used without being tied to any particular set of production arrangements. This article also considers how goodwill can be a source of economic benefit both through reducing transaction costs and, in some cases, through adding value to products. This article then examines the economic rationale for the legal protection of trade marks and shows how this is analogous to the rationale for awarding property rights over tangible resources and different from that for other forms of intellectual property right. The pressure to expand the legal protection of stronger trade marks is explored and it is accepted that there is an economic case for doing so. However, it is argued that the additional protection must be carefully calibrated through definitions that take account of its economic rationale and avoid the danger of over-extending it. In particular, this danger of over-protection arises from making a false analogy between stronger trade marks and the kind of intangible output that is the subject of the other forms of intellectual property right.     

Case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal in 2006

Legal context: The article reviews significant decisions handed down by theBoards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) in 2006,concentrating on decisions of the Enlarged Board and the Boardsof Appeal issued in 2006 and published or to be published inthe OJ EPO. Key points: The article discusses the application of Art. 24 EPC on exclusionand objection to members of the boards of appeal in the lightof the following decisions: G 1/05, T 281/03 and J 15/04; referralspending before the EBA on the subject of divisional applications(Art. 76 EPC and R. 25 EPC) and exclusion from patentabilityunder R. 23d(c) in conjunction with Art. 53a EPC; and decisionsof technical boards of appeal on exclusions from patentability(Arts. 52 (2)(3) and (4) EPC), the requirement of industrialapplicability (Art. 57 EPC) and re-establishment of rights (Art.122 EPC). Practical significance: The article provides an overview of the 2006 case law of theboards of appeal which is particularly useful since most ofthe decisions discussed have not yet been published in the OJEPO. The author is critical of the recent case law on the applicationof Art. 24 EPC (exclusion and objection to members of the boardsof appeal) and reports on several decisions of particular legalinterest.