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.     

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.     

Kicking butt? Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Brandsharing) Regulations 2004

Legal context. This article looks at the provisions of The TobaccoAdvertising and Promotion (Brandsharing) Regulations 2004 implementingEU Directive 2003/33 to approximate the laws of EU Member Statesrelating to indirect advertising and sponsorship of tobaccoproducts through brandsharing. Key points. The Directive is the latest in a series of measuresto control direct and indirect tobacco advertising. Its provisionsand those of the implementing Regulations are widely drawn toprevent use of tobacco trade marks and other features indicatingthe origin of goods or services for non-tobacco products andvice versa if the effect of such use results in brandsharing.Purpose or intended effect is irrelevant—there is no requirementfor ‘mens rea’. There are defences however but absentthese, liability is assessed on the criminal rather than thecivil standard. The Directive also impacts on the procedureof the Patent Office and its assessment of whether trade markscan be accepted for registration. Practical significance. There are practical consequences tooas regards brand clearance and the extent to which identicaland similar marks for tobacco/non-tobacco goods need to be includedin clearance searches.     

Questions referred to the ECJ regarding scope of protection against allusive packaging and use of registered marks on comparison lists

The Court of Appeal is referring a number of questions to theECJ, including questions concerning the scope of protectionfor registered trade marks and the meaning of ‘unfairadvantage’ for the purposes of the Trade Marks Directiveand the Comparative Advertising Directive.     

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 DC Court of Appeals resurrects Redskins dispute

Seven American Indians petitioned to cancel trade mark registrationsfor various REDSKINS trade marks; the district court's grantof summary judgment against them for laches (unreasonable delay)was remanded by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit fora rehearing in respect of one of the petitioners on the basisthat the district court ‘started the laches clock’in 1967, when he was only 1 year old, thus contravening theequitable principle that laches runs only from the time a partyhas reached the age of majority.     

The bowl with the bitter taste

This article examines the particular approach taken by the Courtof First Instance (CFI) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ)in comparing complex or composite trade marks, contrasting itwith the ‘net effect’ doctrine applied by the UK'sAppointed Persons.     

Managing generic competition and patent strategies in the pharmaceutical industry

Legal context: The income streams of originating pharmaceutical manufacturersare under pressure as never before, from increasing R&Dcosts, regulatory pressures, and competition from generic manufacturers.This article examines the various strategies which originatingpharmaceutical manufacturers have adopted in response to thesethreats. Key points: The authors consider various strategies, including SupplementaryProtection Certificates, life-cycle management (‘evergreening’),second pharmaceutical use claims, trade marks, and the use ofdata exclusivity and interim injunctions, in order to prolongthe protection given to existing products, and to manage competitionfrom generic manufacturers. Practical significance: The authors also include two real-life case studies in orderto illustrate the practical applications of the strategies discussedin the article.     

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.     

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.     

Parallel imports: more CD than WOW?

Legal context: Intellectual property rights, particularly trade marks, haveas their primary aim the protection of the rights holder (andperhaps consumer) by allowing him and only him to sell eg, hispatented product, or his product under his trade mark. Counterfeitersand infringers are stopped in their tracks. However, intellectualproperty law has a secondary use – allowing rights holdersto stop products being marketed in Europe without their consent,even when said products are genuine. Key points: This article summarises the law on parallel importation andexhaustion of rights, focussing on two recent UK cases; thesuccessful action by the music industry for copyright infringementby CD-WOW, a leading CD retailer based in Hong Kong and thesuccessful appeal against a finding of trade mark infringementby parallel importer Mastercigars Direct, which imports Cubancigars. Practical significance: Parallel imports provide a means for entrepreneurs to exploitprice differentials between countries in Europe and countriesin the rest of the world. As such, they occur on a significantscale, generating substantial revenues. IP rights holders haveconsistently taken action against such individuals, with Sonyin particular heading to the courts on regular occasions, meetingmostly with success.     

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.     

Deceit and immorality in trade mark matters: does it pay to be bad?

LEGAL CONTEXT: This paper reviews some of the recent leading decisions of theOHIM's Boards of Appeal, interpreting Article 7(1) (f)–(k)of Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 onthe Community trade mark (CTMR). KEY POINTS: Issues of public morality are considered in Grand Board's decisionin ‘Screw You’ and trade marks that deceive thepublic as to the nature, quality, or geographic origin of thegoods and services they cover are looked at in the ‘WineOh!’ case. The application of the public interest conceptunderlying heraldic signs, emblems, and geographical indicationsappearing on alcoholic beverages is also reviewed. PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The attempt to draw together some common threads of the decisionsin this area is designed to help practitioners understand whythe Boards of Appeal have reacted in a certain way to a particularsituation and where the limits currently lie.     

Anticipating the future use of safeguards by the EU and the US on China��s textiles & clothing exports

Textiles and clothing (T&C) trade after lapse of quotas in 2005 has revealed China’s overwhelming comparative advantage in the manufacture and export of T&C products. China’s advantage in this sector attracted the use of trade remedies by WTO members under WTO laws, often in a manner contrary to WTO norms. China has also been subjected to origin-specific safeguard regimes. The EU and the US have been leading users of safeguards against China’s T&C exports. The use of safeguards by the EU and the US raises a number of questions that impact on the future use of trade remedies by other countries. The use of safeguards also poses challenges for the multilateral trading system. This paper analyses the use of safeguards against China’s T&C exports with a view to anticipating the future use of safeguards in the quota-free trading environment for T&C.     

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.     

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.     

Fleeting fame under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006

Legal context: When Congress enacted the Federal Trademark Dilution Act in1996, it intended to create a uniform federal cause of actionfor trade mark dilution. Unfortunately, the statutory languageselected by Congress created certain ambiguities, includinghow famous a trade mark had to be to merit dilution protectionunder the statute. Confusion developed as to whether a markmerely needed renown in a limited geographic area or industry—aconcept that became known as ‘niche fame’—orwhether it needed national renown to qualify as a ‘famousmark’. Key points: In 2006, Congress enacted the Trademark Dilution Revision Actand therein provided a concrete definition for a famous markthat ostensibly removed the ability to qualify for dilutionrelief where the mark was famous only within a particular niche.It was uncertain how courts that had previously favoured theniche fame theory would apply Congress's new definition. However,a district court in the Ninth Circuit, one of the strongestproponents of niche fame, recently held that niche fame is nolonger a viable theory under the Lanham Act or California statelaw as a result of the 2006 amendment. Practical significance: This decision portends that courts will fall in line with Congress'samendment and will deny dilution relief under federal law toparties whose marks are famous only in a particular geographicarea or industry. Additionally, the decision provides some guidanceand predictability as to how states may interpret the viabilityof niche fame under their respective dilution statutes in lightof Congress's 2006 amendment.     

From watchdog to sneak: the UK's new trade mark notification regime

Legal context: This article discusses the move from ex officio refusal of trademark applications based on relative grounds, to a notificationregime. The order making power for this derives from Section8 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Owners of qualifying earlier registered rights, in respect ofwhich registration of the subject application would be consideredto lead to a likelihood of confusion, will be notified of thelater subject application, and must decide for themselves whetherto oppose. Key points: The article examines the justification for such a shift, interms of the need for a proper evidence and submission basedevaluation of the respective marks, as well as the need to takeall market factors into account in any evaluation. It also addressesthe legal and cultural shift entailed in such a change. Finally,the article attempts to set out three objective measures bywhich an evaluation of success could be measured. Practical significance: The change will affect all those who already have, or will have,registered trade mark rights in the UK. The author's concernin particular is for those who will be receiving notificationletters and what their response might be - given that many willbe unrepresented. The author also believes that more notificationswill be sent out than marks that are currently ‘cited’.     

Intellectual property strategies for US security and privacy

Legal context. Some state legislatures are considering billswhich would require those applying for a driver’s licenceto provide one or more biometric identifiers. The US federalgovernment is tending towards eavesdropping on conversationsand investing in data mining efforts while on the other handanti "big-brother" technologies are also emerging to counterthis trend and protect privacy. The demand for technology toprotect privacy will no doubt increase as the demand for defenceand security spending increases. We also live in a world wherebioterrorist acts are a constant threat and therefore demandfor biological detection devices and nanotechnology is growingdaily. Key points. Current technology advances in biometrics, surveillance,biological detection and nanotechnology can be used both toprotect and to jeopardize the security and privacy of individuals.As such, the importance of intellectual property in these areascannot be underestimated. Practical significance. Companies are advised to ‘go onthe offensive’. All companies should aggressively protecttheir core technology in numerous facets such as patent protection,copyright, trade marks and trade secrets. In the high tech arenathis is especially important because the demand for securityand privacy necessitates the development of advanced applicationsand in turn the quality of protectable IP for the companiesthat develop the technology increases. Additionally, companiesshould also pursue an offensive strategy that includes analyzingemerging standards and competitor focus so that they can acquirea competitive advantage or secure cross-licensing of another’stechnology.