Trademark Law
RA Prof. Dr. Martin Senftleben
Bird & Bird, The Hague
VU University Amsterdam
IP Law and Management, CEIPI
Strasbourg, January 24, 2015
2
Overview of the IP system
technologycommerce
culture
patent lawtrademark law
copyright law
Legislation
4
International (substantive law)
WIPO: Paris Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property
(PC, 1883/1967)
WTO: Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS, 1994)
5
WIPO: Madrid System
Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration
of Marks (1891/1967)
Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement (1989)
WIPO: TLT System
Trademark Law Treaty (1994)
Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks (2006)
WIPO: Nice Agreement (1957/1979)
International (procedural law)
6
• Trademark Directive 89/104/EEC (1988) =
Directive 2008/95/EC (2008)
• Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR)
40/94 (1993) = 207/2009
(2009)
European Union
Definition and function
8
‘Any sign, or any combination of signs,
capable of distinguishing the goods or
services of one undertaking from those of
other undertakings, shall be capable of
constituting a trademark.’
(art. 15(1)
TRIPS Agreement)
Distinctive signs
9
producer competitor
consumer
Function (macro): market transparency
ensuring honest commercial practices
consumer protection
contribution to a functioning market
10
origin function
identification of enterprises as the commercial source of goods or services
quality function– expectations of consumers– encouragement to maintain the attained quality
standard
communication function– additional information: lifestyle, attitudes
– trademark image
Function (micro): business strategy
11
product
identification
passive TM
defense
limited to
specific sectors
consumer
communication
active TM
exploitation
TM becomes
a product
exclusive link with a sign
creation of a brand image
marketing
quality control
Function (micro): business strategy
Strategic approach
13
Intelligent legal services
type of trademarkappropriate marketing tool for your target markets?
appropriate basis for strong legal protection?
availability of the trademarkprior rights structure differs from country to country
trademark clearance avoids conflicts
description of goods and servicesdifferent approaches, for instance, in EU and US
requirement of use
14
Intelligent legal services
portfolio management registration and administration costs
languages, dates, trademark monitoring
establishment of a trademark holding?
tax efficiency
brand exploitationinvestment in marketing
enhanced protection of resulting reputation
trademark rights become exploitation rights
selling and licensing of a favorable brand image
15
less costly trademark portfolio
generating extra income =
business asset
Cost effectiveness
16
from the costly defense of
trademark rights
to the creation of exploitable brand value
Successful brand management
Step 1: marketing decisions
18
Checklist
Which signs are desirable from a marketing
perspective?
Which scope of protection is desirable from a
legal perspective?
How to strike a proper balance between these
(potentially competing) goals?
Kinds of marks
20
Art. 2 Trademark Directive (TMD)
‘A trade mark may consist of any sign capable of
being represented graphically, particularly words,
including personal names, designs, letters, numerals,
the shape of goods or of their packaging, provided
that such signs are capable of distinguishing the
goods or services of one undertaking from those of
other undertakings.’
21
Visible signs Non-visible signs
words, letters, numerals
drawings, colors, pictures
3Dhologram
motionposition
sound (audio)smell (olfactory)
capable of being represented graphically?
Overview of signs
22
“American Express”, “Boss”, “Holiday Inn”,
“Microsoft”, “Pizza Hut”, “Puma”
“Mars”, “McDonald’s”, “Mercedes Benz”, “Ralph
Lauren”, “Jil Sander”
“Adidas”, “Kit Kat”, “Kodak”, “Reebok”
“BMW”, “CNN”, “IBM”, “M&M”, “YSL”
“A6”, “501”, “No. 5”, “S 500”, “4711”
Words, letters, numerals
23
Drawings, pictures, colors
24
3D Shapes
25
the roar of a lion?
the tune of a mobile phone?
an engine noise?
the smell of fresh-cut green grass?
Audio marks, smell marks
Excluded signs
27
‘[t]he mark consists of a
transparent bin or
collection chamber forming
part of the external surface
of a vacuum cleaner as
shown in the
representation.’
(para. 10)
CJEU, January 25, 2007, case C-321/03, Dyson/Registrar of Trade Marks
28
‘…the holder of a trade mark relating to such a non-
specific subject-matter would obtain an unfair
competitive advantage […], since it would be entitled
to prevent its competitors from marketing vacuum
cleaners having any kind of transparent collecting
bin on their external surface, irrespective of its
shape.’ (para. 38)
subject matter = mere product property
no ‘sign’ in the sense of the Directive
CJEU, January 25, 2007, case C-321/03, Dyson/Registrar of Trade Marks
29
But see also: CJEU, 10 July 2014, case C-421/13, Apple Flagship Store
‘the distinctive design and layout of a retail store’ (para. 9)
30
‘The following shall not be registered or if registered shall be liable to be declared invalid: […]
signs which consist exclusively of:
the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves, or
the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, or
the shape which gives substantial value to the goods.’
Excluded signs (art. 3(1)(e) TMD)
31
CJEU, June 18 2002, case C-299/99, Philips/Remington
32
‘… to prevent trade mark protection from granting its
proprietor a monopoly on technical solutions or
functional characteristics of a product which a user
is likely to seek in the products of competitors.’
(para. 78)
no monopolisation of decisive product features
safeguarding freedom of competition
CJEU, June 18 2002, case C-299/99, Philips/Remington
33
‘In refusing registration of such signs, Article 3(1)(e),
second indent, of the Directive reflects the legitimate
aim of not allowing individuals to use registration of
a mark in order to acquire or perpetuate exclusive
rights relating to technical solutions.’ (para. 82)
no artifical extension of the term of patent protection
CJEU, June 18 2002, case C-299/99, Philips/Remington
34
CJEU, 14 September 2010, case C-48/09 P, Lego/OHIM (Mega Brands)
Philips/Remington confirmed
in particular: shape alternatives not decisive
35
Rationale?
technology
commerce
culture
patent law
trademark law
copyright law
36
General Court, 6 October 2011, case T-508/08, Bang & Olufson
37
General Court, 6 October 2011, case T-508/08, Bang & Olufson
need to prevent monopoly also in the case of substantial
value shapes
‘Like the ground for refusal to register that applies to the
shapes of goods which are necessary to obtain a
technical result, the ground that concerns refusal to
register signs consisting exclusively of shapes which
give substantial value to the goods is to prevent the
granting of a monopoly on those shapes.’ (para. 66)
38
General Court, 6 October 2011, case T-508/08, Bang & Olufson
this need arises in particular in the case of
specific design
‘Indeed, the shape for which registration was
sought reveals a very specific design and the
applicant itself admits [...] that that design is an
essential element of its branding and increases
the appeal of the product at issue, that is to say,
its value.’ (para. 74)
39
General Court, 6 October 2011, case T-508/08, Bang & Olufson
this need arises in particular in the case of specific
design
‘Furthermore, it is apparent [...] that the aesthetic
characteristics of that shape are emphasised first
and that the shape is perceived as a kind of pure,
slender, timeless sculpture for music reproduction,
which makes it an important selling point.’
(para. 75)
40
CJEU, 18 September 2014, case C-205/13, Hauck/Stokke
41
rationales underlying shape exclusions
competition:no monopoly on essential product
characteristics
term extension:no evergreening of rights with limited
period of protection
CJEU, 18 September 2014, case C-205/13, Hauck/Stokke
42
CJEU, 18 September 2014, case C-205/13, Hauck/Stokke
need to safeguard competition in case of shape resulting
from nature of the goods
not only when indispensable (natural and regulated
products) but also when inherent to the generic function
‘…that shapes with essential characteristics which are
inherent to the generic function or functions of such
goods must, in principle, also be denied registration.’
(para. 25)
43
CJEU, 18 September 2014, case C-205/13, Hauck/Stokke
no artificial extension of limited protection in the case of
substantial value shapes
catalogue of essential characteristics
nature of the category of goods concerned
artistic value of the shape in question
dissimilarity from other shapes on the market
substantial price difference
promotion strategy accentuating aesthetic characteristics (para. 35)
44
Similar outcome?
technology
commerce
culture
patent law
trademark law
copyright law
Protection requirements
46
Art. 2 TMD
‘A trade mark may consist of any sign capable of
being represented graphically, particularly words,
including personal names, designs, letters, numerals,
the shape of goods or of their packaging, provided
that such signs are capable of distinguishing the
goods or services of one undertaking from those of
other undertakings.’
47
Core requirements
procedural:graphical
representation(register
transparancy)
substantial: distinctive character
(market transparancy)
Graphical representation
49
at issue: registration of a smell mark (cinnamic
acid methyl ester)
‘...that a trade mark may consist of a sign which is
not in itself capable of being perceived visually,
provided that it can be represented graphically,
particularly by means of images, lines or
characters, and that the representation is clear,
precise, self-contained, easily accessible,
intelligible, durable and objective.’
CJEU, 27 December 2002, case C-273/00, Sieckmann
50
in case of an olfactory sign (-)
‘In respect of an olfactory sign, the requirements
of graphic representability are not satisfied by a
chemical formula, by a description in written
words, by the deposit of an odour sample or by
a combination of those elements.’
CJEU, 27 December 2002, case C-273/00, Sieckmann
51
notation:
‘On the other hand, those requirements are satisfied
where the sign is represented by a stave divided into
measures and showing, in particular, a clef, musical
notes and rests whose form indicates the relative
value and, where necessary, accidentals.’
CJEU, 27 November 2003, case C-283/01, Shield Mark/Joost Kist
Distinctiveness
53
Distinctiveness
trademark = means of distinction
distinctiveness = basic requirement
to be determined with regard to specific goods or
services (principle of speciality)
‘Ajax’ for a soccer team
‘Ajax’ for a cleaning detergent
depends on social and cultural context
case-by-case analysis
54
Distinctive signs?
indication of product features
‘makes clean’ for a cleaning detergent
use of generic terms
‘apple’ for apples
‘camel’ for camels
... (-)
fanciful signs‘persil’ for a cleaning detergent
signs adopted arbitrarily with regard to the goods or services
‘apple’ for computers
‘camel’ for cigarettes
... (+)
55
may exist from the very beginning (arbitrarily-
chosen, strong trademark)
can be acquired or become stronger through
use (secondary meaning)
but may also decrease (dilution)
may even be lost (trademark becoming a
generic term)
No constant level of distinctiveness
56
secondary meaning
genericism
dilution
Overview of influence factors
(-)
(+)(-)
Need to keep free
58
Marks consisting exclusively of
signs indicating the...
kind, quality, quantity
value, intended purpose
geographical origin
other characteristics of goods/services
Descriptive signs (art. 3(1)(c) TMD)
59
CJEU, 12 February 2004, case C-265/00, Biomild
‘... that all signs or indications which may serve to
designate characteristics of the goods or services
in respect of which registration is sought remain
freely available to all undertakings in order that
they may use them when describing the same
characteristics of their own goods.’
Public interest
60
A combination of descriptive elements is itself
descriptive, unless
‘...there is a perceptible difference between the
neologism and the mere sum of its parts.’
decisive: different impression
CJEU, 12 February 2004, case C-265/00, Biomild
Step 2: management decisions
62
Checklist
For which goods and services should the trademark
be protected?
In which markets should the trademark enjoy
protection?
How to obtain and uphold the required protection for
relevant goods and services in these markets?
Registration
64
Basic principles
registration must always be made in respect of specific
goods and services (principle of speciality)
‘Ajax’ for a soccer team
‘Ajax’ for a cleaning detergent
first application prevails over subsequent applications
exception: application in bad faith
first application may be an application in another
Member State of the Paris Union (Union priority)
65
Paris Union
66
filing in one country of the
Paris Union
6 months
filing in other Union countries
Right of priority (art. 4 Paris Convention)
67
patents, industrial designs
trademarks
Term of protection
10 years, as of application (filing date)
indefinitely renewable for further terms of
10 years
Community Trade Mark
69
CTM Registration
application
publication
opposition registrationexaminationconditions of filingabsolute grounds
refusal
relative grounds
70
‘...signs which consist exclusively of:
the shape which results from the nature of the
goods themselves; or
the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a
technical result; or
the shape which gives substantial value to the
goods.’
Absolute grounds for refusal (art. 7(1)(e) CTMR)
71
Absolute grounds for refusal (art. 7 CTMR)
trademarks which are devoid of any distinctive
character
trademarks which consist exclusively of signs or
indications which have become costumary in the
current language or in the bona fide and
established practices of trade (= generic)
72
trademarks which consist exclusively of signs or
indications which may serve, in trade, to
designate characteristics of the goods or service
(= descriptive)
trademarks contrary to public policy or to
accepted principles of morality
trademarks which are of such a nature as to
deceive the public
Absolute grounds for refusal (art. 7 CTMR)
73
deceptive signs
“Orwooola” for goods made 100% of
synthetic material
signs contrary to morality or public order
“Jesus” for jeans
“Cannabia” for foodstuff
Examples
74
trademarks which have not been authorized by the competent authorities (art. 6ter Paris Convention)
trademarks which include badges, emblems or escutcheons of particular public interest
Absolute grounds for refusal (art. 7 CTMR)
75
Registration
acquisition of trademark rights
term of protection: 10 years
indefinitely renewable
Still possible: application to the Office/
counterclaim in infringement proceedings:
revocation (effect ex nunc, Art. 51 CTMR);
invalidation (effect ex tunc, Arts. 52, 53 CTMR)
76
Requirement of genuine use (art. 51(1)(a) CTMR)
Revocation possible
‘if, within a continuous period of five years, the
trade mark has not been put to genuine use in
the Community in connection with the goods or
services in respect of which it is registered, and
there are no proper reasons for non-use...’
77
Ansul:
holder of ‘Minimax’ for fire extinguishers
sales authorisation expired in 1988
still uses the trademark for component parts, extinguishing
substances and repair services
Ajax:
registered ‘Minimax’ for fire protection materials and related
items in 1992
starts using the mark in 1994
invokes genuine use defense against Ansul
CJEU, 11 March 2003, case C-40/01, Ajax/Ansul
78
CJEU, 11 March 2003, case C-40/01, Ajax/Ansul
‘…in order to create or preserve an outlet for those
goods or services; genuine use does not include token
use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights
conferred by the mark.’
‘…whether the commercial exploitation of the mark is
real, particularly whether such use is viewed as
warranted in the economic sector concerned to
maintain or create a share in the market for the goods
or services protected by the mark…’
79
CJEU, 11 March 2003, case C-40/01, Ajax/Ansul
‘…for goods that were sold in the past does not mean
that its use is not genuine, if the proprietor makes
actual use of the same mark for component parts that
are integral to the make-up or structure of such goods,
or for goods or services directly connected with the
goods previously sold and intended to meet the needs
of customers of those goods.’
Registration strategies
81
solution 1:
harmonisation of national procedures
solution 2:
bundle of registrations via central procedure
The problem
national route
file in many Offices
in many languages
fees in many currencies
numerous national agents
results in many national
registrations
requires many renewals
changes to be recorded via
each national Office
solution 3:
transnational trademark law system
82
national OHIM: Community Trade Mark
covers entire EU territory
Madrid System: international registration
Routes to registration
83
Switzerland
‘uncontrolled’ accumulation of
registrations
Streamlining via the EU system?
84
EU route: Community trademark (CTM)
filing in an official EU language
indication of a second language for opposition, revocation or invalidity procedures (art. 119 CTMR: EN, FR, DE, IT, ES)
seniority claims (art. 34 CTMR)
conversion in case the registration is refused, withdrawn or ceased to have effect (art. 112 CTMR)
85
A registers
the mark Y.
1.1.20091.1.2007 1.1.2008
B registers the
conflicting mark
YY.
A registers Y as a
CTM. Does he still
have to keep the
earlier registration of
Y in Germany?
Claiming seniority
86
Conversion
filing date of CTM application maintained (including potential priority date)
seniority guaranteed
designated EU Member States can ask:payment of national fees
translation into an official language of the State concerned
address in the State concerned
reproduction of the trademark
87
Switzerland
‘uncontrolled’ accumulation of
registrations
Streamlining via international route?
88
International route: Madrid System
basic principle: extension of protection in one Member of the Madrid Union to other Members
one international registration leading to a bundle of trademark rights in designated Members
central recording of changes (name, address, new holder)
central renewal (online)
subsequent designations (new markets)
language regime: EN, FR, ES
89
Madrid Union
90
Madrid Agreement (A)
Madrid Agreement of April 14, 1891
Madrid Protocol (P)
Madrid Protocol of June 27, 1989
common regulations
administrative instructions
national law (Madrid interface)
Overview of the System
91
Certifies particulars in international application = particulars in basic application or basic registration
Checks formalitiesRecords in the International RegisterPublishes in the International GazetteNotifies designated Contracting Parties
substantial examinationwithin
12/18/18+ months
refusal no refusal = effect of a national registration
OFFICE OF ORIGIN
INTERNATIONALBUREAU
OFFICE OFDESIGNATED
CONTRACTINGPARTY
International
Application
national basis: registration (A/P), application (P)
Resulting procedure
92
APSwitzerland
P
AP
P
P
AP
European Community
China
AP
P
Switzerland as a basis
United States
93
P
P
AP
AP
AP
European Union
China
P
Egypt
EU as a basis
Switzerland
P
P
94
first step: designation of Madrid Members in the initial
application
further steps: subsequent designations
(further markets)
Stages of extension
95
one international registration
effect of a bundle of national registrations
efficient managementchanges (name, address, ownership)
renewal
flexibilitysubsequent designations
limitation, renunciation, cancellation
= cost savings
Advantages
Step 3: monitoring and exploitation
97
Checklist
How to monitor the trademark register and the
market in relevant countries?
How to decide on whether or not to take action
against competing signs?
What is the scope of trademark rights?
Trademark rights
99
‘...The registered trade mark shall confer on
the proprietor exclusive rights therein. The
proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third
parties not having his consent from using in
the course of trade: [...]’
Exclusive right: art. 5(1) TMD
100
Use in the course of trade:
offering goods or services under the mark
affixing the mark to the goods or their packaging
putting goods on the market
stocking goods for that purpose
importing or exporting goods under the mark
use on business papers or in advertising
Exclusive right: art. 5(3) TMD
101
…between the mark and the sign?
b. similarity
a. identity
…between the goods and services?
c. similarity+
Layers of trademark protection
Identity: absolute protection
103
Identity
identical signs identical goods or services
adverse effect on one of the
functions of the trademark
“Lacoste” for shirts
“Swatch” for watches
“Toyota” for cars
104
Protected trademark functions
CJEU, June 18, 2009, case C-487/07,
L’Oréal/Bellure:
‘These functions include not only the essential function
of the trade mark, which is to guarantee to consumers
the origin of the goods or services, but also its other
functions, in particular that of guaranteeing the quality of
the goods or services in question and those of
communication, investment or advertising.’ (para. 58)
Confusion: similarity
106
107
108
Similarity
identical or similar signs
identical or similar goods or services
required: likelihood of confusion as to
the origin of goods or services
“Lowcost” for shirts“Swotch” for watches“Toy-yoh-tah” for cars
“Lacoste” for trousers“Swatch” for thermometers
“Toyota” for bicycles
109
Similarity between sign and trademark
comparison of:
trademark as registered and
sign as used in trade
no direct comparison, focus on what consumers
can remember
The overall impression is decisive, not the
details of the sign and the trademark.
110
aural
Claeryn/Klarein
visual
Bally/Baileys
conceptual
Mars/Venus
differences can
compensate
similar features:
Obelix/Mobilix
Similarity between sign and trademark
111
Similarity between goods or services
= when the public perceives the goods or services
as related to each other
CJEU: The assessment must take account of all
relevant factors defining the relation between the
goods and services.
kind, purpose, use
competing or complementary character
(case C-39/97, Canon/Cannon)
112
Influence of the degree of distinctiveness
distinctive character as a basis for identification
the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater the
likelihood of confusion
(CJEU, case C-251/95, Puma/Sabel, para. 24)
the more distinctive the earlier mark, the broader the
field of similar goods/services
(CJEU, case C-39/97, Canon/Cannon,
para. 19)
113
Sabel: application in Germany
Puma: opposition
CJEU, 11 November 1997, case C-251/95
114
Risk of association in the strict sense (without
risk of confusion) is insufficient.
Risk of confusion in any case required. Two
types:
direct confusion: the public confuses the products
concerned
indirect confusion: the public thinks that the products
stem from the same or from associated enterprises
CJEU, 11 November 1997, case C-251/95, Puma/Sabel
Similarity+:protection of well-
known marks
116
Layers of trademark protection
product
identification
distinctive
character
protection
against confusion
consumer
communication
reputation,
repute
protection
against dilution
exclusive link with a sign
creation of a brand image
marketing
quality control
117
Similarity+
similarity with a trademark having a
reputation
identical, similar and dissimilar
goods or services
‘…where use of that sign without
due cause takes unfair advantage
of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive
character or the repute of the trade mark.’
118
exception to the
principle of speciality
in case of well-known
trademarks
Dissimilar goods and services
119
‘The public amongst which the earlier trade mark
must have acquired a reputation is that concerned
by that trade mark, that is to say, depending on
the product or service marketed, either the public
at large or a more specialised public, for example
traders in a specific sector.’ (para. 24)
The standard of having a reputation (CJEU, Case C-375/97, ‘Chevy’)
120
‘The degree of knowledge required must be
considered to be reached when the earlier mark is
known by a significant part of the public concerned
by the products or services covered by that trade
mark.’ (para. 26)
The standard of having a reputation (CJEU, Case C-375/97, ‘Chevy’)
121
‘In the absence of any definition [in art. 5(2) of
Directive 89/104 EEC] in this respect, a trade mark
cannot be required to have a reputation
‘throughout’ the territory of the Member State. It is
sufficient for it to exist in a substantial part of [the
Member State].’ (para. 28)
…niche reputation (+)
The standard of having a reputation (CJEU, Case C-375/97, ‘Chevy’)
122
‘It is sufficient for the degree of similarity between the
mark with a reputation and the sign to have the effect
that the relevant section of the public establishes a link
between the sign and the mark.’
likelihood of association in the strict sense
sufficient
CJEU, 23 October 2003, case C-408/01,Adidas/Fitnessworld Trading
123
damage to the well-known mark:
1) detriment to distinctive character
2) detriment to repute
advantage which the alleged infringer derives
from the use of a similar sign:
3) unfair advantage of distinctive character or
repute
Overview infringement: CJEU distinguishes three situations
124
‘... when that mark’s ability to identify the goods or
services for which it is registered is weakened, since
use of an identical or similar sign by a third party leads
to dispersion of the identity and hold upon the public
mind of the earlier mark. That is particularly the case
when the mark, which at one time aroused immediate
association with the goods or services for which it is
registered, is no longer capable of doing so.’
CJEU, case C-487/07, L’Oréal/Bellure, para. 39
Detriment to distinctive character
125
dilution
(+)
…for pianos, suits, perfume, books, software
Detriment to distinctive character
126
‘... when the goods or services for which the identical
or similar sign is used by the third party may be
perceived by the public in such a way that the trade
mark’s power of attraction is reduced. The likelihood of
such detriment may arise in particular from the fact that
the goods or services offered by the third party possess
a characteristic or a quality which is liable to have a
negative impact on the image of the mark.’
CJEU, case C-487/07, L’Oréal/Bellure, para. 40
Detriment to repute
127
…for fast food, a cleaning
detergent, an Amsterdam night club
Detriment to repute
128
‘...relates not to the detriment caused to the mark but
to the advantage taken by the third party as a result
of the use of the identical or similar sign. It covers, in
particular, cases where, by reason of a transfer of the
image of the mark or of the characteristics which it
projects to the goods identified by the identical or
similar sign, there is clear exploitation on the coat-
tails of the mark with a reputation.’
CJEU, case C-487/07, L’Oréal/Bellure, para. 41
Unfair advantage of distinctive character or repute
129
L’Oréal:
produces luxury perfumes
is the owner of several word marks (Trésor, Miracle,
Noa Noa etc.)
Bellure:
produces cheap imitations of L’Oréal-perfumes
uses L’Oréal-word marks in comparison lists
CJEU, June 18, 2009, case C-487/07,L’Oréal/Bellure
130
CJEU, June 18, 2009, case C-487/07,L’Oréal/Bellure
131
‘... where a third party attempts, through the use of a sign similar
to a mark with a reputation, to ride on the coat-tails of that mark in
order to benefit from its power of attraction, its reputation and its
prestige, and to exploit, without paying any financial compensation
and without being required to make efforts of his own in that
regard, the marketing effort expended by the proprietor of that
mark in order to create and maintain the image of that mark, the
advantage resulting from such use must be considered to be an
advantage that has been unfairly taken of the distinctive character
or the repute of that mark.’ (para. 49)
= unfair free riding
CJEU, June 18, 2009, case C-487/07,L’Oréal/Bellure
132
Marks & Spencer
selects the trademark
‘Interflora’ and variants
as internet search terms
sponsored search result:
‘M & S Flowers Online
www.marksandspencer.com/flowers
Gorgeous fresh flowers & plants
Order by 5 pm for next day delivery’
'Due cause' defence
133
use of a mark with a reputation in keyword advertising
implies the taking of an unfair advantage (free riding)
‘...that such a selection can, in the absence of any ‘due cause’ [...],
be construed as a use whereby the advertiser rides on the coat-tails
of a trade mark with a reputation in order to benefit from its power of
attraction, its reputation and its prestige,...’ (para. 89)
any ‘due cause’ defence available?
CJEU, 22 September 2011, case C-323/09, Interflora/Marks & Spencer
134
‘By contrast, where the advertisement displayed on the internet on the
basis of a keyword corresponding to a trade mark with a reputation
puts forward – without offering a mere imitation of the goods or
services of the proprietor of that trade mark, without causing dilution
or tarnishment and without, moreover, adversely affecting the
functions of the trade mark concerned – an alternative to the goods or
services of the proprietor of the trade mark with a reputation,...’
CJEU, 22 September 2011, case C-323/09, Interflora/Marks & Spencer
135
‘...it must be concluded that such use falls, as a rule, within the ambit
of fair competition in the sector for the goods or services concerned
and is thus not without ‘due cause’.’ (para. 91)
new type of ‘due cause’ defence for informing consumers
about alternatives
considerable breathing space for commercial freedom of
speech?
whole bundle of conditions to be fulfilled!
CJEU, 22 September 2011, case C-323/09, Interflora/Marks & Spencer
136
CJEU, 6 February 2014, case C-65/12, Red Bull/Bulldog
137
CJEU, 6 February 2014, case C-65/12, Red Bull/Bulldog
Mr. de Vries
runs Bulldog bar/restaurant in Amsterdam
started use of the trade name ‘Bulldog’ prior to
registration of Red Bull’s trademark
registered name as a trademark himself several days
after registration of Red Bull trademark
started selling energy drinks at some point
Red Bull
proprietor of the Red Bull trademark
trademark acquired high reputation
138
CJEU, 6 February 2014, case C-65/12, Red Bull/Bulldog
139
CJEU, 6 February 2014, case C-65/12, Red Bull/Bulldog
use may imply unfair free riding, but all circumstances
to be considered
in particular: own reputation of the Bulldog sign as a
balancing factor
‘...requires a determination as to how [the Bulldog] sign
has been accepted by, and what its reputation is with,
the relevant public.’ (para. 54)
140
CJEU, 6 February 2014, case C-65/12, Red Bull/Bulldog
inquiry into the intention of the third party required
determination of good faith (para. 56)
degree of proximity between goods/services
when the sign was first used for an identical product
when the mark acquired its reputation
141
CJEU, 6 February 2014, case C-65/12, Red Bull/Bulldog
natural extension of the range of services and goods for
which that sign already enjoys a certain reputation?
‘...the sale of energy drinks contained in packaging
which displays that sign may therefore be perceived, not
as an attempt to take advantage of the repute of the
mark ‘Red Bull’, but rather as a genuine extension of the
range of goods and services offered by Mr de Vries.’
(para. 58)
142
…written ‘E$$O’
Without due cause?
143
Without due cause?
Limitations
145
limitation?
art. 6 TMD
..., provided
honest practices in
industrial or commercial
matters
exhaustion?
art. 7 TMD
..., provided
no legitimate reason of
the owner to oppose
further sale
Starting point: use that, in principle, would amount to infringement
146
Overview art. 6 TMD
use own name or address
indications concerning the characteristics of goods
or services (descriptive use)
necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a
product or service, in particular as accessories or
spare part (use that refers to a trademark)
earlier right which only applies in a particular
locality (within the limits of the relevant territory)
Exhaustion
148
Partitioning of markets
trademark rights as a weapon against parallel
imports?
(+) in case of national exhaustion
(-) in case of international exhaustion
Netherlands: 100 EUR
Greece: 75 EUR
149
‘The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to
prohibit its use in relation to goods which have
been put on the market in the Community under
that trade mark by the proprietor or with his
consent.’
EU-wide exhaustion (‘communautaire’)
Art. 7(1) TMD
150
Art. 7(2) TMD
‘…shall not apply where there exist legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further commercialisation of the goods, especially where the condition of the goods is changed or impaired after they have been put on the market.’
re-packaging (CJEU, July 11, 1996, case C-427/93, BMS/Paranova)
inappropriate advertising (CJEU, November 4, 1997, case C-337/95, Dior/Evora)
151
To prevent artifical market partitioning,
re-packaging is permitted, provided that
the original state of the product is not impaired;
the presentation of re-packaged products is not
detrimental to the repute of the mark;
the trademark owner is informed beforehand.
CJEU, July 11, 1996, case C-427/93, BMS/Paranova
152
advertising is indispensable: reseller is permitted to advertise
loyalty obligation: reseller must seek to prevent that the advertising is detrimental to the value of the trademark
permitted: the advertising that is usual with regard to comparable products in the relevant sector
exception: the brand image is damaged seriously
CJEU, November 4, 1997, case C-337/95, Dior/Evora
Comparative advertising
154
• O2:
– registered
bubbles as
a trademark
• Hutchison:
– shows in advertising for telecom services
black-and-white pictures of moving bubbles
– compares the price of her services with
those of O2
CJEU, June 12, 2008, case C-533/06, O2/Hutchison
155
‘...must be interpreted to the effect that the proprietor
of a registered trade mark is not entitled to prevent
the use, by a third party, of a sign identical with, or
similar to, his mark, in a comparative advertisement
which satisfies all the conditions, laid down in Article
3a(1) of Directive 84/450, under which comparative
advertising is permitted.’ (para. 45)
CJEU, June 12, 2008, case C-533/06, O2/Hutchison
The end. Thank you!For publications, please search
for ‘senftleben’ on
www.ssrn.com.