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 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.     

Pre-sale misrepresentations in passing off: an idea whose time has come or unfair competition by the back door?

Legal context. This article addresses the scope of the tortof passing off in English common law. Key points. The scope of passing off has traditionally beenlimited to confusion at the point of sale. Developments in marketpractice and trade mark law may argue in favour of extendingthat scope to cover both pre- and post-sale confusion. However,such an extension raises commonly voiced concerns about theintroduction of a general tort of unfair competition into Englishlaw. This article considers the specific issue of pre-sale confusionand concludes that there is both the need and the scope to bringit within reach of passing off. To do so would not amount tothe introduction of a general tort of unfair competition, butwould be entirely consistent with the rationale which has alwaysbeen the foundation for the tort. Practical significance. The conclusion advocated in this articlewould expand the range of conduct on which passing off claimscould be based and would increase the protection afforded tothe owners of famous brands.     

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.     

Significant 2005 case law on the Community trade mark from the Court of First Instance, the European Court of Justice and OHIM

Legal context. Each year the ECJ and CFI gives numerous judgmentsin trade mark matters that are of interest to trade mark practitionersthroughout Europe. This article identifies the most importantcases decided in 2005 relating to the major issues in trademark law. Key points. Issues covered relating to procedural questionsinclude the language regime, the duty of Boards of Appeal togive reasons for their decisions, the right of a party to beheard, etc. Numerous substantive issues are covered, relatingto both absolute and relative grounds. The article also containssome helpful annexes that set out some actual comparisons ofsigns and of goods & services that have been carried outby the Luxembourg courts.     

Exclusion payments in patent settlements: a legal and economic perspective

Legal context. The application of antitrust law to assess settlementsof patent litigation raises difficult issues concerning theappropriate balance of patent law and competition policy. Recentprivate and public invocations of US antitrust law to challengesettlement agreements covering pharmaceutical patents have broughtthese issues to the forefront. The agreements share the commonfeature of an ‘exclusion payment’ from a brand-namedrug manufacturer (the patentee) to a generic drug manufacturer(the accused infringer) in exchange for a promise by the genericcompany to refrain from marketing its product for some time.US federal courts that have examined these agreements have variedin their approach and conclusions regarding the appropriateantitrust analysis to be applied to these settlements. Key points. This article argues that informed antitrust analysisof such agreements must take due note of the ‘probabilistic’nature of patent property rights. Practical significance. The article concludes that exclusionpayments fall outside the scope of a patent's exclusionary scopeand thus are subject to antitrust scrutiny. It demonstratesthat barring anticompetitive exclusion payments in settlementnegotiation prevents collusive bargains that harm consumer welfarewithout discouraging efficient settlements.     

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.     

One more outing for Arsenal: a case of dilution or one for restitution?

Legal context. This note, which comments on the preceding pieceby Susie Middlemiss and Steven Warner, deals with the implicationsfor the future development of passing-off of the dicta of AldousLJ in Arsenal v Reed, which are considered there. Key points. The article concludes that Aldous LJ was unlikelyto have been contemplating the introduction of a common lawdoctrine of trade mark dilution, or any other extension to passing-offwhich would remove misrepresentation from its central positionas one of the essential elements of the Classical Trinity, andthat the existing state of the authorities rules out any suchdevelopment by the Court of Appeal. Practical significance. It is tentatively suggested that anextension of existing passing-off principles to cases of pureunjust enrichment may have been what Aldous LJ had in mind,and that this would not necessarily be too radical a step forthe common law to accommodate.     

Exhaustion and parallel importation of copyright goods under Turkish law

Legal context. Turkey undertook to align its domestic intellectualproperty legislation with that of the European Communities,although it is not currently a member of the European Union.Towards this goal, the Turkish Copyright Act was amended inaccordance with Decision 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Counciland Council Directive 92/100. This article sets out the arrangementsregarding the exhaustion and parallel import of copyright goodsunder Turkish intellectual property law. Key points. The territorial exhaustion rule has been acceptedunder Turkish intellectual property law. By the first sale orother transfer of ownership of copies of a work, within theborders of Turkey, the distribution right of the copyright owneris exhausted in these copies. Copyright owners have the exclusiveright to prevent parallel import of copies of their works whichwere manufactured and marketed abroad with their consent. Practical significance. The rule of regional exhaustion is notapplicable in trade relations between Turkey and the EU. Onthe assumption that the copies of a work which is protectedunder Turkish law are first sold within the borders of the EU,the copyright owner in Turkey may prevent the parallel importationfrom the EU to Turkey. In contrast, once the first sale of copiesoccurs in Turkey, the parallel importation from Turkey to theEU can be prevented by the copyright owner within the bordersof the EU.     

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.     

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     

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.     

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.     

Imperatives for the enforceability of collective agreements in Nigera

This article examines the rationale behind the non-enforcement of collective agreements in Nigeria, theories propounded for the enforceability of collective agreements, and the need for courts in Nigeria to adopt a more liberal approach towards enforcement. This article argues that contrary to the position of the law in Nigeria that collective agreements are not enforceable, this parties, especially trade union leaders, academics and notable oil companies in Nigeria such as Shell, Chevron, etc. do intend to enter into legal relations whenever a collective agreement is arrived at and this is the reason why there is less industrial unrest in the private sector of the oil and gas industry in Nigeria. This article argues that multinational oil companies honour collective agreements entered into with their trade unions because they see such agreements as intended to create legal relations. It is the Nigerian government and its agencies that have failed to honour collective agreements freely entered into with trade unions, despite the time and resources that have been expended to arrive at such collective agreements. This article argues that collective agreements do not fall within the purview of social or domestic arrangements, but business transactions. This article takes a look at the position of collective agreements in other jurisdictions such as the USA, Great Britain, South Africa and The Netherlands, and urges the court in Nigeria to expound the law relating to collective agreement since there are several legislations in Nigeria touching on collective agreements which the courts can expound.     

Ordinary Folk and Cottaging: Law, Morality, and Public Sex

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a new statutory offence of 'sexual activity in a public lavatory' into English law. Although written as a gender-neutral offence, the statute was formulated and enacted on the basis of concerns about male homosexual sexual activity in public lavatories ('cottaging'). This paper examines the justifications for, and implications of, the legislation. It considers the main arguments made in support of the offence and situates these within established moral, legal, and social debates about homosexuality. The paper considers the relationship between conceptions of public and private morality in relation to the legal regulation of homosexual sex. It goes on to explore the complex nature of regulating public sex in relation to sexual practices which often maintain high degrees of privacy. The final part of the paper argues that the legislation is largely in contradiction with the realities of police work and contemporary law enforcement.     

A comparative analysis of trade and economic integration in East Asia and Latin America

This paper provides an analysis of the two channels of regional integration: integration via markets and integration via agreements. Given that East Asia and Latin America are two fertile regions where both forms of integrations have taken place, we examine the experiences of these two areas to illustrate our conclusions. There are three related results. First, East Asia has been integrating via the markets long before formal agreements have been in vogue in the region. Latin America, on the other hand, has primarily been using formal regional trade treaties as the main channel of integration. Second, despite the relative lack of formal regional trade treaties until recently, East Asia is more integrated among itself than Latin America. Third, from a purely economic and trade standpoint, the proper sequence of integrations seems to be first integrating via the markets and subsequently via formal regional trade agreements. One interpretation of the relative success of the East Asian approach is that regional trade agreements often serve multiple constituents. Integrating via markets first can be helpful because this can give a stronger political bargaining power to the outward-looking economic-oriented forces within the country.     

Licensing lifesavers: possible routes to overcome errors and omissions in licence agreements

Legal context. This article is about the possible ways the correctionof errors in a written agreement can be achieved. These errorsmight be in the way that the agreement has been written or thatthe parties misunderstood the agreement each thought they weremaking. Key points. English law provides a number of ways in which suchmistakes or misunderstandings might be resolved, ultimatelyby a court if further agreement cannot be reached. First, thewritten agreement might simply be unenforceable. If not, thena court might construe the wording in the agreement in a waythat reflects the intention of the parties, implying terms intothat contract, or rectify the words used in the agreement. Practical significance. The intention of the article is to makepractitioners aware of these various routes to remedy mistakeswhich have been made in connection with written agreements.This knowledge will enable an informed approach to be takento resolving the dispute of which the mistake or alleged mistakeis the cause. Negotiations can take place around the possibleeffect of the mistake and the available remedies. This knowledgecan be used to resolve disputes arising out of such errors eitherby negotiation, possibly through mediation, and ultimately byappropriate action in the courts.     

Walking the groundless threats minefield

Legal context. It is one of the peculiarities of UK law thatthreatening litigation of IP rights can, in some circumstances,give rise to an action for "groundless threats". This has thepotential to cause great disruption to the right-holder's case.There is even the potential for professional advisors to endup in the dock where they made the threat on their client'sbehalf, raising the possibility of a conflict of interest preventingthe advisers from continuing to act. Key points. To minimise the risk of these scenarios, intellectualproperty law advisors, be they patent or trade mark attorneysor solicitors, should be aware of the provisions that governgroundless threats actions for the various IP rights, particularlyin light of the recent changes brought in by the Patents Act2004 and the further changes expected to the groundless threatsprovisions relating to designs. These alterations increasinglycomplicate what has always been a nebulous area of the law.In addition, there is considerable tension between the "talkfirst, sue later" philosophy underlying the Civil ProcedureRules and the "sue first, talk later" approach traditionallyused to circumvent threats actions. Reckitt recently confirmedthat the groundless threats provisions, while running counterto the purpose of the CPR, cannot be ignored by the Courts.This article provides an overview of the current state of thegroundless threats provisions that apply to the various IP rights,and considers how IP owners and their advisors can best navigatethe groundless threats minefield. Practical significance. Groundless threats form a complex andchanging area of IP law in the UK, which advisers need to takeinto account in virtually every dispute. Amendments made toSection 70 of the Patents Act 1977 have not provided a threatspanacea to patent holders and it remains to be seen how thesection will be interpreted by the Courts. What is clear isthat the threats provisions contained in the IP legislationwill remain in force in one form or another for the foreseeablefuture and that they remain a trap for the unwary.     

试论GATT/WTO协定之私人执行——一个美国法的视角

私人执行GATT/WTO协定是指私人如何行使在GATT/WTO协定下的国家贸易权利。"1934年体制"下"进口竞争性产业"与"出口导向性产业"之间的博弈使得美国国会与总统在共同行使国家经济主权中,通过缔结GATT/WTO协定,为美国创设了市场准入权利与贸易救济权利。这些贸易权利要在国内法中被私人执行,则必须创新国内进口与出口贸易救济制度。     

Gaining confidence in the law of confidence

Legal context. The recent case of EPI v Symphony has left theUK law of confidentiality in an uncertain state: the extentto which recipients of confidential information may be permittedto ‘use’ mixtures of such information with publiclyavailable material remains unclear. The Court of Appeal in EPIfelt that it was hard to reconcile the principle that any claimin confidence must fail if the material in question is in thepublic domain with the ‘springboard’ doctrine; butis the distinction illusory? Key points. Issues raised in this case include considerationof what precisely is ‘use’ of confidential information,when mixed with public information, and whether a confider shoulddo more than rely on confidentiality obligations to protectthe fruits of his/her disclosures. This article asks how confidentialityobligations may be aligned with the control of statutory intellectualproperty rights. It considers whether the Court of Appeal inMarkem v Zipher has confused the issue and speculates as tohow far the general law of contract can assist the confider. Practical significance. Finally, this article discusses whichlegal tools will best assist the confider seeking to protectits intellectual property.