Community trade mark case law round-up 2006

Legal Context: This article looks at the important decisions of 2006 on theCommunity Trade Mark made by the Court of First Instance, theEuropean Court of Justice and the OHIM. These cases concernthe application of Council Regulation 40/94 on the CommunityTrade Mark, and also preliminary rulings from the European Courtof Justice on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/104(the Trade Mark Directive). Key Points: The volume of case law relating to Community trade marks, notto mention the variety of official languages in which the lawis interpreted, makes it almost impossible for even the conscientiouspractitioner to keep abreast with developments as they occur. This article provides an overview of the shifts in Communitytrade mark practice, in terms of not only the relatively accessiblesubstantive law but also the far more diffuse areas of procedurallaw and Office practice. In seeking to review and explain these shifts, the authors haveadopted a view of the case law that is functional rather thanphilosophical. In doing so, they lay bare the manner in whichthe institutions that administer and adjudicate Community trademark issues interrelate to one another. Practical Significance: Practitioners can quickly find the important decisions from2006 relating to particular articles of the Council Regulation40/94 on the Community Trade Mark. This article provides an overview of the most significant trademark cases decided in 2006 by the European Courts of Justiceand the OHIM Boards of Appeal. The article enables practitionersto access rapidly the key decisions of 2006. The cases discussed concern the application of Council Regulation40/94 on the Community trade mark (‘CTMR’), CommissionRegulation 2868/95 implementing the CTMR (‘CTMIR’),and Council Directive 89/104 (the ‘Trade Mark Directive’).     

The overlap between registered Community designs and Community trade marks

Legal context: Community trade marks and registered Communitydesigns have co-existed since April 2003. The relevant Europeanlegislation permits some subject matter to be registered undereither or both of these regimes. Key points In the absence of an express prohibition, it wasperhaps inevitable that the owners of distinctive designs wouldconsider registering them as trade marks and, conversely, thatthe owners of certain non-conventional trade marks might takeadvantage of opportunities for cheap and speedy registrationunder the designs system. The ability to obtain registered Communitydesigns and trade marks for the same subject matter is consideredhere. Practical significance A party seeking to protect the designof a distinctive product shape or its packaging may be ableto register it as a Community trade mark where it has missedthe boat for claiming novelty as a registered design, or wherea pre-existing design right is about to expire. On the otherhand, a distinctive and new logo or get-up which needs quickand cheap protection may benefit from being registered as aCommunity design. Neither the rights owners, nor those againstwhom they seek to assert their rights, should accept the validityof a registered Community design without question since thereis no substantive examination procedure. However, where valid,it can provide a powerful alternative to a trade mark and auseful additional weapon against unfair competition.     

Trade mark invalidated on ground of copyright infringement

The Registrar of Trade Marks ordered invalidation of a registeredtrade mark that was a copy of the whole of the applicant's mark‘MAX BRENNER & Device’, where use of the disputedmark was liable to be prevented by the applicant's earlier copyrightunder the provisions of the Copyright Ordinance.     

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.     

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.     

Cancellation of a trade mark based on a prior foreign geographical indication related to different products

The registration and the use of a composite trade mark includinga famous geographical indication (GI), for products differentto those covered by the GI, are acts of unfair competition insofaras they allow the trade mark owner to free-ride on the GI'sreputation, causing its dilution.     

Human rights and trade mark rights

Legal context. For some time the UK Trade Marks Registry hasrefused to register trade marks which consists of the name ofa well-known individual. This article examines whether the practiceis permissible, not in the terms of intellectual property lawbut whether it is in contravention of the applicant's humanrights. Key points. Looking at the application of the Human Rights Actin the United Kingdom, the article asks how it could apply toan intellectual property case, concluding that the Trade MarkRegistry is clearly a ‘public authority’ and thatthere are a number of ways in which current practice in respectof well-known individuals could be said to infringe their humanrights. Practical significance. It remains to be seen what the Registry'sresponse will be to such arguments and whether it might in thefuture be possible to obtain protection for the name of a celebrity.     

Conversion in the trade mark context

Legal context. The paper examines the formal requirements formaking a conversion application and provides an overview ofall the significant time limits which have to be observed. Key points. All relevant decisions taken by the Court of FirstInstance and the OHIM's Boards of Appeal are analysed by theauthors, particularly regarding the geographical scope and registrabilityof English language words. Consideration is also given to transformationand conversion under the Madrid Protocol and explanations areprovided regarding the five different types of conversion andtransformation in that context. As a special feature, the articledeals with conversion in the new Member States as well as inthe context of multiple oppositions. Practical significance. The article looks at conversion of Communitytrade mark applications and registrations into national trademarks from a practical and regulatory perspective. It explainsthe different considerations for requesting conversion froma commercial, legal and factual point of view and, in particular,the different grounds for requesting conversion.     

Significant 2007 case law on the Community trade mark from the ECJ and the CFI

Legal context: This article looks at the important decisions of 2007 on theCommunity trade mark made by the Luxembourg courts. Key points: The cases discussed concern the application of Council Regulation(EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark(the ‘CTMR’), Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2868/95of 13 December 1995 implementing the CTMR (the ‘CTMIR’),and the Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (‘Directive89/104’). Practical significance: The purpose of this article is to give a quick overview of themost significant trade mark cases decided in 2007 by the Luxembourgcourts. The article has a practical bias and is aimed at readerswho wish to find quickly the key decisions of 2007.     

Comparative advertising is not trade mark infringement

The Court of Appeal has indicated that the use of a competitor'sregistered trade mark for comparative advertising is not trademark infringement.     

Who's the bigger McBrat? When trade mark protection strategies overstep the mark

US burger giant McDonald's Corporation suffered a comprehensiveand very public loss at the hands of Malcolm McBratney (a partnerin the IP Group of Australian law practice McCullough Robertson),raising questions as to why that corporation should have initiatedand continued the proceedings in the first place.     

Common sense prevails in trade mark transfer dispute

The High Court of Justice has interpreted Article 17(2) of theCommunity Trade Mark Regulation, which provides that ‘[a]transfer of the whole of the undertaking shall include the transferof the Community trade mark’, in a commonsense mannerthat provides that the Community trade mark shall follow thetransferred business. The Court gave great weight to facts andcircumstances of the relevant transactions in giving effectto the transfer of the trade mark rights.     

The right venue for trade mark infringement cases

Actions regarding trade mark infringements must be brought beforethe Maritime and Commercial Court and not before any other localcourt in Denmark.     

Navigating the rocky waters of trade mark law

Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 14th Edition ByDavid Kitchin QC, David Llewelyn, James Mellor, Richard Meade,Tom Moody-Stuart, David Keeling; with Consultant Editor: TheRt. Hon Sir Robin Jacob; Sweet & Maxwell, 2005 Price: £255,Hardback, ISBN: 0421860804, pp. 1,350   Until recently, trade mark practitioners in the United Kingdomhad to make do with the 13th edition of Kerly, the 1st editionof The Modern Law of Trade Marks, or the CIPA/ITMA Handbookwhen navigating the rocky waters of trade mark law and practice.The first two of these texts     

Publish and be damned in trade mark cases

The principle that a defendant in a libel case should be entitledto avoid an interim injunction if it plans on proving the truthof the allegations at trial did not extend to trade mark infringementor passing off cases.     

Demonstrating 'use' of an earlier registered mark in CTM opposition proceedings

An earlier registered trade mark may serve to oppose a laterapplication to register a Community trade mark, notwithstandingthat the earlier mark is not used in the form in which it isregistered, so long as the actual use had not destroyed thedistinctive character of the earlier mark.     

Polish Supreme Administrative Court says no to trade marks for trade mark attorneys

The Supreme Administrative Court of Poland rejected the cassationcomplaint brought by the Kulikowska & Kulikowski (K&K)law firm and thereby confirmed that trade mark attorneys cannotapply for trade mark registrations in their own interest.     

商标权与商号权的权利冲突及解决途径

作为商业识别标记，商标与商号不仅用以区别商事主体和商品来源，而且还承载商事主体享有的商业信誉、商品的质量承诺。商标与商号本身具有的宣传和促销功能在激烈的市场竞争中所发挥的效用更是不可低估。随着市场经济发展和竞争加剧，企业为了争夺市场、扩大影响导致了商标权与商号权的权利冲突不断发生且有加剧之势。因此，如何完善商标、商号立法及相互间的协调，寻求商标权与商号权权利冲突……