Search

Languages play a major role in trade mark law. Especially when it comes to the examination of EU trade mark applications, the number of official languages involved in this process is remarkable. While it appears that in the past there was a certain reluctance vis-a-vis the linguistic scope of assessment, more recently the EUIPO and the Boards of Appeal adopted an expansive approach. By expanding the scope of examination to "dead languages", colloquial language, minority languages and non-indigenous languages, in a certain way the ELI trade mark system also serves to promote linguistic diversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the decision of the General Court of the European Union on the case Victor International GmbH v. EUIPO and explores trademark policies.

This article is a semiotic analysis of the trade mark holders vicarious liability, which aims to formalise an alternative hermeneutic criterion to protect the interests of trade mark holders without any need to embrace any misappropriation doctrine with the ability to marginalise the dialogical ability of citizens in the meaning-creating process of distinctive signs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Trade Mark Reform Package introduced by the European Union Trade Mark Regulation which codifies trade mark laws and mentions topics including the Article 28(8) declaration in the reform package, and the impact on the classification of goods and services.

The article discusses how the law, Trade Mark Package, passed by the European Parliament reforms the inconsistencies between the old Trade Mark Directive, Community Trade Mark Regulation and the Geographical Indications laws in terms of ground of refusal.

Within Directive 2008/95 trade mark use remains ill defined. In Arsenal v Reed the CJEU offered broad guidance regarding use offline, while in Google France they created a new test to establish the same online. The recent case Flynn Pharma v Drugsrus suggests the existence of a divergence in approach, questioning the usefulness of this test and making a re-evaluation necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shape marks consisting of several essential elements which are only partlyfunctional in the sense of art. 7(l)(e) EUTMR can he registered. These hybrid shape trade marks can function as a deterrent to competitors just by being in the register because of legal uncertainty over whether functional elements are free to be copied or not. Using disclaimers can decrease legal uncertainty significantly. Instead of deleting art. 37(2) EUTMR, the use of disclaimers should have been made mandatory when registering shape marks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Initial interest confusion is a controversial doctrine and has, until now, been largely resisted or ignored. Following Interflora v Marks & Spencer (CAII) and OCH-Ziff Management v OCH Capital, it is necessary to ask whether it ought to be accepted within European trade mark law, and if so, where within the current framework it should sit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on some judgments of the European Court of Human Rights applying the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of trademarks. The first group of cases relates to the freedom of expression (Art 10). In the cases Tokaji, Marlboro and McDonald's, the applicants referred to this principle to defend their actions related to the trademark. The second kind of cases relate to the protection of property (Protocol No. 1). In the case of Budweiser the European Court took the position in favor of applying this rule to a trademark application. The third group of cases relates to the right to a fair trial (Art. 6). According to reports on the Orient and McDonald's cases, the national courts committed important procedural faults. The conclusion of the author is that trademark rights can be protected by means of human rights only in exceptional circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EU trade mark law acknowledges the possibility of protection conferred by trade marks representing the shape of goods or their packaging. However, in order to prevent trade mark protection from granting its proprietor an unlimited monopoly on technical solutions or functional characteristics of goods which a user is likely to seek in the goods of competitors, EU trade mark law provides some exceptions to trade mark registration of shapes. In the long-awaited decision o/Hauck GmbH & Co KG v Stokke A/S (C-205/13)' (September 18, 2014), the CJEU sheds some light (and leaves some shadows) on the interpretation of two grounds fo r refusal set out by art.3(l)(e) of the Trade Mark Directive which prohibits the registration of signs which consist exclusively of the shape "which results from the nature of the goods themselves" or "which gives substantial value to the goods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the CJEU ruling in Google France and the Court of Appeal decision in Interflora v Marks & Spencer, it has become necessary to re-evaluate the role of the average consumer, especially in relation to art.5(1)(a) of Directive 2008/95: specifically his characteristics, the burden of proof and possible future uses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors argue that the Recommendation on Measures to Safeguard Freedom of Expression and Undistorted Competition in European Union (EU) Trade Mark Law provides a toolkit for establishing a well-functioning trade mark system in the EU. Fundamental freedoms and EU laws are mentioned, along with the efforts to ensure market transparency. Trade mark legislation is examined in relation to the legislative processes at the EU's Parliament, Commission, and Council.

The article evaluates the laws which govern the use of trade marks as adwords in the European Union (EU), and it mentions several court judgments and the efforts to maintain a balance between promoting competition and preventing infringement. Keyword advertising-related legal proceedings involving parties such as fashion firm Louis Vuitton Mallettier SA and Internet company Amazon.co.uk. Ltd. are mentioned. Internet advertising and the Court of Justice of the European Union are examined.

The article discusses how Europe deals with private imports of counterfeit and pirated goods. It analyses the law and practice in European Union countries in relation to intellectual property right (IPR)-infringing goods imported through postal and express courier and through travellers' personal luggage. Also discussed is the Switzerland's Swiss Trade Mark Protection Act that was adopted in 2008.

An introduction is presented in which the author discusses various articles within the issue on topics including development of trademark law in the European Union, Community Trademark Regulation and the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in addresing the trademark infringement cases.

The article discusses the decisions taken on various court cases on trade mark law by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH). Topics discussed include substantive trade mark law cases, cases on style of trading, and laws related to names of products.

The authors focus on the court case Bimbo SA v. OHIM, Panrico SA which is related to composite trade marks (CTMs), and the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to the assessment of composite marks and the likelihood of confusion. They note that the Trade Marks (TM) Directive of the European Union (EU) law provides protection for national trade marks. Also mentioned are decisions held by the CJEU on court cases Sabel v. Puma and Medion v. Thomson.

Copyright of Revista de Derecho UNED is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The author argues that retailers such as computer company Apple Inc. have used the unique distinguishing qualities of their retail locations as a key feature of their brand and image, focusing on the Court of Justice of the European Union's ruling in the 2014 case Apple Inc. v. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt which deals with the scope of European trade mark legislation in regards to the design of a layout for a retail store. European Union laws and German courts are also examined.

The article discusses trademark policies in the European Union and cites a court case involving Latin America-based mass media group Globo Comunicação e Participações SA.

The article focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and its clarification of trademark law in the European court case Société des Produits Nestlé SA v. Cadbury UK Ltd. Topics include the registering of three-dimensional (3D) products as trademarks, the distinctive character requirement, and the exclusive rights of trademark holders.

The article focuses on the idea of use of a trademark in countries such as European Union and the U.S under their trademark laws. Topics discussed include the concept of a Community Trade Mark (CTM) in European Union (EU) and the EU concept of protection of trademark owners from unfair competition, the U.S. Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) and a nationwide trademark right created by the U.S Congress and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The article focuses on the intellectual property (IP) protection of smells in the European Union (EU) in 2014. Topics include the possibility of protection for olfactory trademarks, the distinctiveness requirement in patent law, and European courts' interpretation of Community Trademark Regulation (CTMR).

The CJEU has confirmed that, in an action for the declaration of invalidity of a Community trade mark (CTM) based on the existence of an earlier right protected under national law, under Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR), the competent OHIM bodies and the General Court must be able to ascertain the relevance of the evidence produced by the applicant to establish the content of the applicable national law, obtaining by their own motion, if necessary, any further information about its scope, content and interpretation. This principle, according to the court, stems from the necessity of ensuring the practical effect of the CTMR, and falls in line with the teaching of the judgment in Edwin v OHIM (C-263/09 P, EU:C:2011:452). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses whether a European Union (EU) legal test for trade mark confusion on the Internet differs from the tests that are applied to trade mark infringement in other spheres, focusing on the legal cases OCH-Ziff v. OCH Capital and Interflora v. Marks & Spencer Flowers Direct which deal with initial interest confusion and the likelihood of association online. Community trade marks, Great Britain's Trade Marks Act 1994, and the trade origin of goods or services are examined.

The article focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) court case Leidseplein Beheer BV and de Vries v. Red Bull GmBH, which dealt with trademark infringement under the European Union (EU) Trade Marks Directive 89/104. Topics include trademark reputation and efforts to prevent trademark confusion.

The article focuses on the double identity rule under European Union (EU) law, which protects against the use of identical signs to advertise for identical goods and services. Topics include trademark law in the EU, the origin function, and protection against trademark dilution. Information is provided on international exhaustion in the EU.

Trademark rights are negative rights that allow the rights holder to exclude others from using a confusingly similar mark in the course of trade. The concept of likelihood of confusion is therefore one of the cornerstones of trademark law as it is the conditio sine qua non2 for finding trademark infringement and, accordingly, the key to delimit the ius prohibendi conferred by the said trademark rights. Surprisingly, little has been written on the comparison of the legal concept of likelihood of confusion and the guidelines to assess its existence between the two major jurisdictions on intellectual property issues: the United States and the European Union. The purpose of this article is to provide a comparative analysis of both jurisdictions and to learn from the European model in order to reform and unify the thirteen circuits' thirteen different multi-factor tests for trademark infringement based on likelihood of confusion. Section I provides a short introduction to European trademark law, the role of precedent in this field of law, and, foremost, the harmonization process that led to the development of a single test for trademark infringement on the basis of likelihood of confusion. This single test is currently in force in the twenty-eight Member States of the European Union with respect to both national trademarks and community trademarks. Section II discusses the underpinnings of the concept of likelihood of confusion in both jurisdictions, concluding that they do not differ to a large extent. Section III analyzes the relevant factors weighed in the test for likelihood of confusion and the methodology used in the European Union, in contrast to the common factors shared in the thirteen multifactor tests of the United States. Section IV concludes, recommending: (i) the adoption of a unified test for trademark infringement based on the two-step objective approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union; and (ii) a focus on the assessment of the main three factors--similarity of marks, proximity of goods, and distinctiveness of the senior mark--with the flexibility of adding any other relevant factor to the specific circumstances of the case. Moreover, since confusion only occurs in the mind of the consumer, the analysis should be exclusively carried out from the perspective of a heuristic, average consumer. Finally, it is the author's opinion that the relevant factors used for the test should exclude a defendant's intent, and the decision maker should carefully examine the evidentiary relevance of actual and survey evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Should a Bulgarian decision, in which European trade mark law is not applied correctly, be recognized in subsequent proceedings between the parties involved before a Dutch court, notwithstanding that recognition of that decision may not be refused on the ground that it contravenes Dutch public policy because of the incorrect application of EU law? [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on the issue of trademark dilution under the European law. Topics discussed include two important legal instruments on which trademark law in Europe is based such as harmonization directive and council regulation based on the community trade mark (CTM), the Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and protection of registered and unregistered rights against detriment and free-riding. It mentions the case General Motors v. Yplon.

The article focuses on the European court cases Société Des Produits Nestlé SA v. Cadbury UK Ltd. and JW Spear & Son Ltd. v. Zynga Inc., which dealt with the registrability of exotic trademarks under European Union (EU) trademark law. Topics include the registration of smells, colors, and sounds under EU law and the distinctiveness doctrine in trademark registration.

The article focuses on the substantial value rule under the European Union's (EU) trademark law. Topics include the EU's Trade Marks Harmonisation Directive, the protection of industrial trademarks, and the secondary meaning requirement. Information is provided on community trademark laws in the EU and trademark distinctiveness.

This article compares United States and European Union case law on the extent of trademark protection in keyword and comparative advertising to establish that using a trademark without the trademark proprietor's consent in such advertising is treated in fundamentally different ways in the United States and European Union. In comparative advertising, when a company uses the registered trademark of a well-known competitor product to truthfully and non-deceptively describe their imitation product, rather than a unique competitor product, such use is unlawful in the European Union yet lawful in the United States. In keyword advertising, the most important difference between the European Union and United States' approach is that search engine operators in the United States are likely to be held directly liable for trademark infringement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The General Court, evaluating the likelihood of confusion between two conflicting marks under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009, examined the complementarity of film production and broadcasting services, and clarified the perimeter of the notion of ‘relevant public’ in relation to persons having only an indirect relationship with the service provider. The court also assessed the link between peaceful coexistence of the marks and absence of any likelihood of confusion, providing useful guidance on the evidence needed to establish it. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the legal aspects of counterfeit and replica luxury watches as of October 2013, focusing on various issues related to "marriage" watches which are comprised of a mix of original and non-original movements, dials and cases. European Union law, disclaimers, and trade mark infringement are addressed. Watch manufacturing firms such as Rolex and Patek Philippe are mentioned, along with the legal rights of trade mark owners and defences to infringement claims.

The article discusses the European Commission's proposed reform of the European trade mark system as of October 2013, focusing on Community trade marks, European Union (EU) law, and efforts to improve the trade mark registration systems in the EU. Fee structures for the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) and national registries are mentioned, along with bad faith. The authors argue that there should be provisions which stipulate that OHIM decisions are binding precedents.

The article discusses several legal issues related to the use of trade marks on the Internet as of September 2013, focusing on various decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), online trade mark infringement claims, and the laws regarding Internet search engines. Article 5 and 7 of European Union Directive 2008/95 on trade mark use and liability are examined, along with a 2002 legal case involving the Arsenal Football Club soccer organization.

The article discusses the European Commission's (EC's) Proposal for the revised European Union (EU) Tobacco Products Directive in 2013 which deals with plain packaging laws. Australia's Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 is addressed, along with trade mark rights in the EU and the reported disproportion of the EC's proposal. The Court of Justice of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are examined, along with product counterfeiting.

The article offers information on the assessment of the notion "likelihood of confusion", a statutory basis for analysis of trademark infringement cases, under the Community Trade Mark (CTM) law in the European Union. It overviews the main principles, rulings, and guidelines that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the General Court to assist lawyers in CTM opposition proceedings. It discusses the adoption of the trademark law developed by the Community Trade Mark Regulation.

The article offers information on the role of public order and morality limitations in intellectual property rights with its integration in the European Union law. It discusses three categories of antisocial marks, which addresses the superficial morality of trademarks, antisocial nature and effect of the brand messages by trademarks.

Copyright of Ottawa Law Review is the property of University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article explores the trade mark system implemented by the European Union (EU). It mentions that the provisions in the Trade Mark Directive (TMD) and Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR) are identical in terms of the efforts to protect the intellectual property (IP) rights of members. According to the author, the provisions exclude issues related to the use of IP for aesthetic functionality.

The article discusses the proposals of the European Commission to revise the trademark system in the European Union (EU). It states that the Community trademarks which have both effect at an EU level and EU-wide will be renamed as European trademarks. Among the proposed amendments include the omission of graphic representation, addressing the relationship of the trademark system to geographical indications and traditional terms, and defences against trademark infringement.

The article presents a review of trademark law harmonization in the European Union (EU) as of January 2013, focusing on the establishment of the EU Trade Marks Directive in 1989, globalization, and the European Commission's impact on EU trademark laws. The EU Community Trade Mark Regulation is addressed, along with the Court of Justice of the European Union's treatment of trademark infringement cases. Commercialization, trademark dilution, and the European Economic Area (EEA) are mentioned.

The article discusses the role of the European Commission's Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in European trademark harmonization as of January 2013, focusing on the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) and Community trademark (CTM) laws in the EU. Several OHIM-related lawsuits are examined, including a case involving manufacturer Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co.'s CTM application for its Doublemint brand gum product.

The article focuses on the development of the principle of trademark exhaustion in the European Union (EU) from 2002 and analyzes the current jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the application of the Article 7, especially for the protection of famous marks and luxury goods against unauthorized trade by third party importers. It further discusses the most relevant trends in the recent CJEU's decisions in the area of trademark and patent.

Actions for damages are currently under discussion in the debate on the effectiveness of remedies available in breaches of intellectual property rights. The laws in this area include certain specific rules in addition to the general rules on torts liability. One of these rules provides that trademark owners have the right to obtain a minimum compensation of one per cent of the turnover obtained from infringing products and services. This article analyses the purpose and systematic implications of this remedy, its consistency with EU law and its requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

El artículo analiza decretos y sentencias en Derecho de la Propiedad Intelectual, Industrial y Competencia Desleal emitidos en la Unión Europea y España entre marzo y agosto de 2010. Los autores discuten la reforma de las penas por distribución de copias fraudulentas de menor cuantía, así como regulaciones de la publicidad de la industria de servicios financieros en España. Se discuten varias sentencias sobre derecho de marcas en la Unión Europea.