Dilution in the US, Europe, and beyond: international obligations and basic definitions

Legal context. The efficacy of trade mark dilution as a causeof action has been cast into doubt by the Supreme Court's actualdilution standard. However, Congress is currently consideringthe Trademark Dilution Revision Act 2005, removing the actualdilution standard and resolving other difficulties under thepresent Lanham Act 43(c). This should breathe new life intoblurring and tarnishment. It should also be recalled that theEU already has strong laws against dilution and unfair advantage. Key points. This article identifies international dilution obligationsin order to determine (in Part II) whether the US and EU arecompliant. It identifies problems under the present US dilutionlaw and the solutions offered by the Revision Act. It comparesthe US proposals with EU dilution protection to determiningwhat the two jurisdictions have to learn from each other. Thistheme will be continued in the next part of this article, whichfocuses specifically on blurring/detriment to distinctive character. Practical significance. The introduction of new US legislationwill make successful dilution claims easier and will increasethe frequency of actions under 43(c). It is vital that trademark lawyers are familiar with the changes. At the same time,it should be remembered that many of the same outcomes can beachieved under the current European legislative provisions.To the extent that the jurisdictions do not live up to theirinternational dilution obligations, there is scope for proprietorsto lobby for even stronger protection.     

Amanda Michaels

A barrister at Hogarth Chambers, Amanda Michaels has recentlybeen appointed by the Lord Chancellor as an Appointed Personunder the Trade Marks Act 1994. Amanda is also the author ofA Practical Guide to Trade Mark Law (Sweet & Maxwell). Hereshe answers some questions put to her by JIPLP     

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     

Philip Grubb

Dr Philip Grubb, the distinguished patent specialist and authorfound time to answer questions put to him by JIPLP. How did you first become interested in IP? In 1971, I was working as a research scientist at the CorporateResearch Laboratory of ICI in Runcorn, looking for alternativesto a lifetime career in research. A job in the small patentdepartment there was advertised internally. I considered thisbut thought ‘patentssounds difficult, you have to study     

Adam Liberman

Adam Liberman, one of Australia's leading IP lawyers, is nowGeneral Counsel of CSIRO, Australia's national science agency.Also an established IP author, here he found time to answerquestions put to him by JIPLP. How did you first become interested in IP? Various unrelated strands formed my IP interest. The first waswhen I read Charles     

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     

In Person

This month JIPLP interviews Gonzalo Ulloa y Suelves, a well-knownpersonality not only with the Spanish and European intellectualproperty professions, but also internationally. Gonzalo graduatedwith a Master of Law degree from the Universidad de Madrid     

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     

Jerome Gilson

Distinguished US lawyer Jerome Gilson has practised trade markand unfair competition law for more than 40 years. He is bestknown in the US and internationally as the original author ofTrademark Protection and Practice (LexisNexis/Matthew Bender),which was renamed Gilson on Trademarks in 2007. How did you first become interested in IP? Five years into general practice, I sent a Time article about     

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.     

'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.     

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.     

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     

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.     

Frederick Mostert

Frederick Mostert, one-time International Trademark AssociationPresident and author of a leading text on Famous Marks, spearheadsthe branding and trade mark protection activities of luxurygoods house Richemont. Here, he pauses from his hectic lifeto tell us a little about himself. How did you first become interested in IP? As     

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.     

Comment on Forni's "Using Stationarity Tests in Antitrust Market Definition"

Economic analyses of prospective mergers must typically be undertakenwith limited data. Often prices are the only available data,so it is tempting to use their time series alone. Certainly,simple and robust measures of the extent of the market basedon limited data would aid merger analysis immensely. However,a couple of examples show how Forni's suggested methodologycan lead one astray. Consider a differentiated products market with demand systemln D_i(p_i, p_j) = 1 – ln p_i + ln p_j, i, j = 1, 2, i j,with associated constant marginal costs c₁ = _t c, c₂     

In Person

Clare, a partner in London solicitors Collyer Bristow, specializesin IP litigation. Much of her work involves trade mark/passingoff litigation, although copyright and design orientated mattersalso constitute important areas of practice for her,