law firm around the world law firm around the world law firm around the world law firm around the world

Some Recent Developments in EU and UK Trade Mark Law16th April 2004, IPD Hong Kong

David Llewelyn

Visiting Professor, King’s College London; Partner, White & Case (London); Executive Chairman, Ipr-X (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd

Appellate System

OHIM Board of Appeal

Court of First Instance (“CFI”)

European Court of Justice (“ECJ”)

Capable of Being a Trade Mark?

“Sound Marks”

“Smell Marks”

“Colour Marks”

Yes… (1) If Capable of Being Graphically Represented… and

….but how can a smell be ‘graphically represented’?

(2) If Capable of Denoting Trade Origin

Can you recognise the manufacturer solely from the shade of purple??

Non Distinctive - Shape Marks

3-D SHAPE MARKS REJECTED

                                                                        

AXION

Shape Marks

SOCIÉTÉ DE PRODUITS NESTLÉ S.A. v. UNILEVER PLC

(High Court – U.K.)

PRODUCT RECOGNITION ALONENOT SUFFICIENT

Colour Marks

KWS SAAT AG v. OHIM (CFI)

VIKING-UMWELTTECHNIK GMBH v. OHIM (CFI)

Colour Marks

LIBERTEL GROEP B.V. (ECJ reference from the Netherlands)

ANDREAS STIHL AG v. OHIM (CFI)

Colour Marks… conclusion

Colour marks will only be registered where there is evidence of prior use – LIBERTEL GROEP

B.V.

CONSUMER EDUCATION

Distinctiveness v. Descriptiveness

THE INITIAL APPROACH

‘BABY-DRY’ (CFI)

‘COMPANYLINE’ (CFI)

Distinctiveness v. Descriptiveness

THE PRAGMATIC APPROACH

‘VITALITE’ (CFI)

‘DOUBLEMINT’ (CFI)

‘EASYBANK’ (CFI)

Distinctiveness v. Descriptiveness

A SHIFT IN THE LAW

‘BABY-DRY’

ECJ DECISION

Distinctiveness v. Descriptiveness

PROVISIONALLY ACCEPTED AFTER ‘BABY DRY’ (ECJ)

‘NEW BORN BABY’ (CFI)

‘ULTRAPLUS’ (CFI)

The UltraPlus range

But now we have DOUBLEMINT

‘designates characteristics’

‘suggestive of characteristics’

…. where do you draw the line?

ECJ – ‘DOUBLEMINT’

X

ECJ Decision in OHIM v Wm Wrigley Jr Company

“A sign must therefore be refused registration under [Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation no.

40/94] if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the

goods or services concerned.”

ECJ Decision in OHIM –v- Wm Wrigley Jr Company

From DOUBLEMINT it would appear that BABY DRY has been restricted:

A mark may now be devoid of distinctive character even where there is one purely descriptive meaning amongst other non-descriptive ones.

Need to Keep Free…

‘WINDSURFING CHIEMSEE’

(ECJ reference from Germany)

GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN

Need to Keep Free….

LIBERTEL GROEP B.V. (ECJ reference from the Netherlands)

WIDER APPLICATION

‘LINDE’ (ECJ Reference from Germany)

Customary Usage

ECJ – Art. 7(1)(d) only excludes words customarily used to designate goods or services in question

MERZ & KRELL GMBH(ECJ reference from Germany)

ALCON v. OHIM (CFI)

Shape Marks

2-D REPRESENTATION OF A 3-D SHAPE

PHILIPS v. REMINGTON(ECJ reference from the U.K.)

Extension of Protection for Marks With a ‘Reputation’

DAVIDOFF & CIE SA & ZINO DAVIDOFF SA v. GOFKID LTD.(ECJ reference from Germany)

ADIDAS SALOMON A.G. & ADIDAS BENELUX B.V. v. FITNESSWORLD TRADING LTD.

(ECJ – Opinion of A.G. Jacobs)

When Is a Trade Mark Not a Trade Mark??

ARSENAL FOOTBALL CLUB v. REED (ECJ reference from the U.K.)

Revocation for Non-Use

‘HIWATT’ (CFI)

LABORATORIES RTB SL v. OHIM (CFI)

ANSUL B.V. v. AJAX BRANDBEVEILIGING B.V.(ECJ reference from the Netherlands)