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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

ECJ denies relevance of 'acquired attractiveness' for registration of shape marks

The ECJ rejects the suggestion of the Dutch Supreme Court thata shape which gives substantial value to the product (in thiscase, a specific stitching on G-Star jeans) may neverthelessbe registered as a trade mark if the shape's attractivenesshas predominantly become the result of its recognition by thepublic as a distinctive sign.     

Hortino pretends to be Hortex: the Polish Supreme Court confirms how to calculate compensation

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland confirmed in itsjudgment a novel method for establishing the quantum of profitsgained by an infringer in the course of his trade mark infringement.     

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.     

Trade mark registration of non-conventional marks: 'Coca-Cola' in Thailand

The Supreme Court of Thailand has issued a historic decisionrelated to registering non-conventional marks in Thailand byallowing the registration of the two-dimensional shape of theCoca-Cola contour bottle as a trade mark.     

Intellectual Property High Court of Japan denies registration of trade mark for market leading multi-million dollar beer product on non-distinctive grounds

The Intellectual Property High Court of Japan's (IPHCJ) recent Honnama trade mark decisionillustrates the difficulties of registering an inherently non-distinctivemark and the perils of relying on secondary meaning evidenceof use that is not identical with the mark in the trade markapplication.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

'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.     

I wonder if this is a Wunderbaum

The Court of First Instance, dismissing a Community trade markapplicant's appeal against the decision to allow an oppositionin part, affirms that the public's recognition of the opponent'searlier Community trade mark may be assessed in relation tothe degree of recognition achieved by that mark through itsclose similarity to an earlier national registered trade markbelonging to the opponent.     

Don't be a Martyr to Res Judicata

The High Court rules that a party who unsuccessfully opposesa trade mark application cannot later re-challenge the validityof the same trade mark by way of defence to an infringementclaim.     

ECJ allows service marks for retail trade and tells Nestle it can 'HAVE A BREAK' without having a Kit Kat

In response to a reference from the UK Court of Appeal, undertrade mark Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, the ECJdetermined that distinctive character may be acquired throughuse as part of an already registered trade mark.     

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.     

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.