DOCSLIB.ORG

The Removal of the Requirement for Graphical Representation of EU Trade Marks the Impact of the Amending Trade Mark Regulation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Removal of the Requirement for Graphical Representation of EU Trade Marks the Impact of the Amending Trade Mark Regulation J U R I D I C U M The Removal of the Requirement for Graphical Representation of EU Trade Marks The Impact of the Amending Trade Mark Regulation Jacob Bolte HT 2016 JU101A, Examensarbete på avancerad nivå, 30 högskolepoäng Examinator: Kerstin Nordlöf Handledare: Erika Lunell 1 Abstract This thesis has the aim of illuminating how the removal of the requirement for graphical representation will affect the EU trademark registration system, especially in regard to legal certainty and flexibility. By examining and analyzing the contents of the ATMR, along with the landmark Sieckmann case, the results indicate that the regulation may simultaneously improve both legal certainty and flexibility. The legal elements are improved as the ATMR provides possibilities for the creation of many new forms of representations that are both more precise and better suited to the technology of modern times than previously permitted representations. Keywords: Graphical representation, representation, trademark, EU, Amending Trade Mark Regulation, ATMR, Regulation (EU) 2015/2424, legal certainty, flexibility, Sieckmann, non- conventional trademarks, sound mark, 3D-mark, hologram, color mark, scent mark, smell mark, touch mark, positional mark. 2 Sammanfattning Denna uppsats har syftet att bringa klarhet kring hur avskaffandet av kravet på grafisk återgivning kommer påverka EUs varumärkesregistreringsystem, i synnerhet med rättssäkerhet och flexibilitet i åtanke. Genom att granska innehållet i Ändringsförordningen för varumärken, tillsammans med det mycket betydelsefulla Sieckmann-fallet, har svaret till frågan ovan framkommit genom analysen som indikerar på att införandet av Ändringsförordningen kan förbättra graden av både rättssäkerhet och flexibilitet. Sagda förbättringar uppkommer till följd av att förordningen möjliggör skapandet av många nya sorters återgivningar som både är mer precisa till sin form samt bättre anpassade till dagens teknologiska nivå än tidigare tillåtna återgivningar. Nyckelord: Grafisk återgivning, återgivning, varumärke, EU, Ändringsförordningen för varumärken, Förordning 2015/2424, rättsäkerhet, flexibilitet, Sieckmann, okonventionella varumärken, ljudmärke, 3D-märke, hologram, färgmärke, luktmärke, känselmärke, positionsmärke. 3 Table of contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Sammanfattning ......................................................................................................................... 2 Table of contents ........................................................................................................................ 3 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 5 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Research topics ................................................................................................................. 7 1.3 Method and material ......................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Method ...................................................................................................................... 8 1.3.2 Material ..................................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 10 1.5 Prior research .................................................................................................................. 11 1.6 Ethical considerations .................................................................................................... 11 1.7 Disposition ..................................................................................................................... 11 2 The concepts of legal certainty and flexibility ...................................................................... 13 2.1 – The importance of defining terms and concepts ......................................................... 13 2.2 – Legal certainty ............................................................................................................. 13 2.3 – Flexibility .................................................................................................................... 14 3 The EU trademark and the categorization of marks .............................................................. 16 3.1 Legal framework, competent authorities and the nature of the EU trademark .............. 16 3.1.1 The framework and competent authorities .............................................................. 16 3.1.2 The nature of EU trademark .................................................................................... 16 3.2 The categorization of conventional and non-conventional trademarks.......................... 18 3.3 Conventional trademarks ................................................................................................ 18 3.3.1 Word marks ............................................................................................................. 19 3.3.2 Figurative marks ...................................................................................................... 19 3.4 Non-conventional trademarks ........................................................................................ 19 3.4.1 Three-dimensional marks ........................................................................................ 20 3.4.2 Holograms ............................................................................................................... 21 3.4.3 Colors and colors per se as marks ........................................................................... 21 3.4.4 Sound marks ............................................................................................................ 23 3.4.5 Olfactory marks and taste marks ............................................................................. 24 3.4.6 Other types of non-conventional marks .................................................................. 25 4 Graphical representation and the Sieckmann case ................................................................. 27 4.1 The importance of the Sieckmann case .......................................................................... 27 4 4.2 Background .................................................................................................................... 27 4.3 Ruling of the Court and the creation of the Sieckmann criteria ..................................... 28 4.4 Consequences following the ruling ................................................................................ 32 4.4.1 The administration of smell and taste mark applications ........................................ 32 4.4.2 Consequences for legal certainty and flexibility in the trademark registration system ............................................................................................................................... 32 5 Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 35 5.1 The aim and structure of the analysis ............................................................................. 35 5.1.1 The posed research question ................................................................................... 35 5.1.2 Structure of the analysis .......................................................................................... 35 5.2 The removal of the need for graphical representation in art. 4 of the ATMR ............... 36 5.3 Consequences for conventional trademarks ................................................................... 37 5.4 Consequences for non-conventional trademarks ............................................................ 38 5.4.1 Three-dimensional marks ........................................................................................ 39 5.4.2 Holograms ............................................................................................................... 41 5.4.3 Colors per se marks ................................................................................................. 42 5.4.4 Sound marks ............................................................................................................ 43 5.4.5 Olfactory marks and taste marks ............................................................................. 45 5.4.6 Other types of non-conventional marks .................................................................. 46 6. Summary and conclusions of the analysis ............................................................................ 48 6.1 Summary of the findings of the analysis ........................................................................ 48 6.2 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 49 6.2.1 The importance of the 9th recital of the ATMR ....................................................... 49 6.2.2 Legal certainty and the new forms of representation .............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trademark Law 2020 the Year in Review
    Trademark Law 2020 www.morogluarseven.com The Year in Review Index Introduction - Exception to The Mandatory Mediation Procedure 4 We welcome the new year still reeling from the one - The Future of Well-Known Trademark Registrations is Under Threat 8 just ended; still grappling with the lingering effects of - Court of Cassation Rules On Loss Of Rights By Remaining Silent and an ongoing global pandemic. No industry or profession Bad Faith 12 emerged from 2020 unaltered. Trademark law practice is no exception. Nevertheless, we must chart a well- - Uncertainty Remains over Acquired Rights in Trademark Law 16 informed course for 2021. To that end, we present - Does Use in Free Shops Constitute Trademark Use in Turkey? 20 Moroğlu Arseven’s survey of last year’s important - Impact of The COVID-19 Pandemic on Anti-Counterfeiting 24 trademark law developments. - The TPTO Takes a Helpful Approach to Classification 28 - A Review of Non-Traditional Trademarks Filed at The TPTO 32 Moroğlu Arseven - New TPTO Practice for Notifying Oppositions to International Trademark Applications 36 -A Stricter Approach to Descriptiveness and Distinctive Character as Absolute Grounds for Refusal 40 2 Trademark Law 2020 | The Year in Review Trademark Law 2020 | The Year in Review 3 Mediation became mandatory for commercial The generally accepted view on how to apply cases initiated with monetary claims pursuant mandatory mediation has changed in cases to the Law on the Procedure of Initiating the where more than one request is brought Proceedings for Monetary Claims Arising together. In the early stages of the practice, Exception to from the Subscription Agreement and the mediation was accepted as a pre-condition for supplemental article 5 / A of the Turkish every case which involved a monetary claim.
    [Show full text]
  • OVERVIEW of TRADEMARK LAWS in INDIA Index Slide Particulars Slide Particulars Nos
    OVERVIEW OF TRADEMARK LAWS IN INDIA Index Slide Particulars Slide Particulars nos. nos. 3. India as an amenable jurisdiction 13-20. Recognition i. Registered trademarks under the Act ii. Well-known trademarks iii. Trade dress 4. Trademark as an international concept 21-26. Protection: i. Ownership ii. Opposition iii. Rectification / cancellation iv. Cross-bd/border/ trans-bdborder reputtitation 5-8. International Trademark law: 27-28. Actions– infringement and passing – off i. Paris Convention ii. TRIPS iii. Madrid Protocol 9. Indian Statutory Law: Trademarks Act, 1999 30-33. Civil and criminal remedies i. Civil – injunction, damages and accounts of profits, costs, delivery-up, other restraint orders, ii. Criminal – imprisonment and fine 10-12. Draft Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules, 2015 34. Conclusion and Na tiona l In te llec tua l Proper tty RiRight hts Po licy, 2016 India as an amenable jurisdiction India is widely recognized as an amenable jurisdiction for trademark registration and protection of trademark rights, inter alia : Constant modernization of trademark offices with a vision to protect IPR; leading to growth in trade, commerce and industry; Multi-tier enforcement mechanism – Registrar, intellectual property appellate board (IPAB), civil and criminal courts; At the Registrar level: Wide recognition of trademarks, trade-dress and well-known trademarks; Speedy registration process (constantly improving; for instance, the finance minister of India has proposed a policy which will allow registration of trademarks within a period
    [Show full text]
  • Registrability of Non-Conventional Trademarks: a Critical Analysis
    [ VOLUME 6 I ISSUE 1 I JAN.– MARCH 2019] E ISSN 2348 –1269, PRINT ISSN 2349-5138 Registrability of non-conventional trademarks: A critical analysis Dr. Mwirigi K. Charles* & T. Sowmya Krishnan** *Post-Doctoral Fellow, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru, 560029. **Scholar, Master of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru, 560029. Received: January 10, 2019 Accepted: February 28, 2019 ABSTRACT: In the globalized age when international cross-border trade is taking place, marks have become a key tool to indicate an identity of the company. A good trade mark has its own picture, attaches distinctive personality to the goods and is a competitive essence. Modern marking law reflects some innovations in terms of "marking" itself. The' modern market' is in the process of inventing new products that have a typical smell, special touch and uniqueness of sound to offer the' modern customers ' more' sensory' consumer products. While these new trademarks have still not been widely accepted in every jurisdiction, the use of these brands in contemporary markets is common. Modern times are the result of certain legislative amendments or judicial interpretations, new forms of sensory trademarks have become accepted globally as intellectual property. Non-traditional trademarks continue to be a practice in the modem market and the case-law is evolving in this respect. Studies show, however, that the request for non-traditional marks to be registered in international trade from the owners is increasing. On the contrary, in examination, registration and enforcement of these marks, there are no uniform standards worldwide. Against this background, this paper contains a brief history, by various case studies, on registration and enforcement of non-traditional marks, the reason for their protection under legal regimes, prevalent in the US, European Union (EU) and India.
    [Show full text]
  • Reply Brief for the Petitioners
    No. 19-46 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. BOOKING.COM B.V. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Goodyear remains good law and resolves the question presented here .................................................. 2 B. Sound trademark policy supports the conclusion that adding a top-level domain to a generic term does not create a protectable mark ............................. 14 C. Respondent’s survey evidence does not provide a sound basis for treating BOOKING.COM as a registrable trademark ................................................... 20 Appendix — Table of rejected marks ..................................... 1a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291 (3d Cir. 1986) ....................................................................... 12 Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976) ............................................ 5, 7, 22 Advertise.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 616 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................. 3, 4, 15, 16 Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991)................................................................ 5 Blinded Veterans Ass’n v. Blinded Am. Veterans Found., 872 F.2d 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ............................ 16 CyberFinancial.Net Inc., In re, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1789 (T.T.A.B. 2002) ...................................................................... 3 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) ................................................................. 5 Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., In re, 240 F.3d 1341 (Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for Trademark Examination and Trial
    Strategic Partnership and Cooperation between the EU and China on Intellectual Property Standards for Trademark Examination and Trial State Administration for Industry and Trademark Commerce of the People’s Republic of China Office Trademark Review and Adjudication Board December of 2016 1 IP Key is co-financed by the European Union and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). IP Key Beijing Office, Room 2080, Sunflower Tower No. 37, Maizidian West Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing, CHINA 100125 Email: [email protected], [t] +86 10 8527 5705, [f] +86 10 8527 5708 Strategic Partnership and Cooperation between the EU and China on Intellectual Property IMPORTANT The Trademark Office and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board have revised the Standards for Trademark Examination and Trial on basis of widely soliciting opinions from all sources and learning from the foreign examination standards and in combination with years of trademark examination and trial practices, for the purpose of accommodating to the third amendment to the Trademark Law and further regulating and well completing the work concerning trademark examination and trial. This amendment added the sound trademark examination standards, the standards for application of Examination Opinions in the examination practices, the standards for application of Paragraph 4, Article 19 of the Trademark Law, the standards for application of Article 50 of the Trademark Law, the trial standards of Paragraph 2, Article 15 of the Trademark Law, and the standards for determination of stakeholders, and made corresponding revision to the examination standards based on the partial revision to Article 10 of the Trademark Law, and deleted and added some examination cases to enrich and improve the content of the standards for trademark examination and trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction of the Madrid Protocol
    Introduction of the Madrid Protocol Japan Patent Office Asia - Pacific Industrial Property Center, Japan Institute for Promoting Invention and Innovation ©2016 Collaborator: Junko Saito Patent Attorney Ishida & Associates Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1 Outline of the Madrid System ............................................................................................. 2 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Background of the Madrid System ...................................................................................... 3 1.3 Madrid Agreement .............................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Madrid Protocol .................................................................................................................. 6 1.5 Differences with the Madrid Agreement ............................................................................. 7 1.6 Member Countries of the Madrid Protocol ......................................................................... 8 2 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Madrid Protocol...................................................... 10 2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages for Users ......................................................................... 10 2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages for Office
    [Show full text]
  • A Reflection About the Introduction of Non-Traditional Trademarks 25 a Reflection About the Introduction of Non-Traditional Trademarks
    A Reflection About the Introduction of Non-Traditional Trademarks 25 A Reflection About the Introduction of Non-Traditional Trademarks Roberto Carapeto 1. Introduction The present paper aims to analyze how some key jurisdictions have been adopting the protection of non-traditional trademarks. While doing that, it seeks to unfold the discussion about a comprehensive and universal definition of what mark/trademark is. Also, some consideration about how the adoption of non-traditional trademarks have been affeefing the harmonization of Trademark law around the world, aiming to conclude if there was a positive influence or not. For the current analysis the author choose to select jurisdictions with global influence, such as US and EU, historical influence, such as France and Germany, local influence, such as Argentina or India. The scope of what is considered a non-traditional trademark has yet to be defined conclusively. In this sense, for the purpose of the present article, the introduction of the protection for sound trademarks will be used as a definite landmark for the protection of nontraditional trademarks. 2. About Non-Traditional Trademarks The traditional range of trademarks have been limited to word, symbol or design, or a combination thereof. Even if there are some small differences from country to country, this scope is somewhat steady and the expansion of this scope has been being discussed for more than 100 years. Upon a difficulty in defining what is a non-traditional trademark, any trademark that does not fall within that traditional scope of “word, symbol or design, or a combination thereof” shall be considered as a non- traditional trademark.
    [Show full text]
  • Shapes, Sounds and Smells Shapes, Sounds And
    Building trademark expertise since 1986 NOVEMBER 2009| Issue 222 | Shapes, sounds and smells Non-traditional trademarks explored Nokia v HMRC Counterfeit transhipment case Chinese challenge Protecting brand names Online infringement Smart enforcement strategies www.ipworld.com K US: NON-TRADITIONAL TRADEMARKS Building trademark expertise since 1986 United States: Shape, sound and smell marks Lisa Martens and Alex Garcia explore levels of protection afforded to shape, sound and smell trademarks in the US he marketing industry has always Pepsi then answered its own question in had a strong relationship with subsequent advertisements with “Pepsi Has T trademark law. This profession, the Swirl!” comprised of highly creative individuals, is Pepsi applied for trade dress registration responsible for developing some of the most for the shape and grooved appearance of its popular slogans, catch phrases and brand new soda bottle. The Trademark Trial and names of all time. Without their ingenuity, Appeal Board (Board) allowed the campaigns such as JUST DO IT (Nike) and registration of the new bottle, but the Board GOOD THINGS COME TO THOSE WHO excluded the registration from the Principal WAIT (Guinness) would not exist. Register, explaining instead that the proper However, advertising and marketing location for this new registration was the campaigns are not restricted to words or Supplemental Register. phrases. Rather, these professionals have a The evolution of trade dress continued to long history of utilising all of the human progress and eventually the Supreme Court senses to attract and retain consumer issued an opinion in Two Pesos, Inc. v Taco AUTHORS attention. From catchy musical tunes to Cabana, recognising that trade dress is Lisa Martens is a principal in the San distinctive three-dimensional designs, capable of inherent distinctiveness.2 Diego office of Fish & Richardson PC.
    [Show full text]
  • “Generic.Com” Trademarks May Be Registered If Consumers Do Not Perceive Them As Generic
    Latham & Watkins Intellectual Property Litigation Practice July 28, 2020 | Number 2782 Supreme Court: “Generic.com” Trademarks May Be Registered if Consumers Do Not Perceive Them as Generic The decision expands the availability of trademark protection for domain names and limits the number of terms deemed unprotectable because they are generic. Key Points: • The addition of the .com top-level domain to an otherwise generic term can transform the term into a potentially registrable trademark. • Consumer surveys will become even more essential in trademark litigation, as well as in the registration process. According to the US Supreme Court’s June 30, 2020, decision, a brand name can serve as a trademark only if the mark is capable of identifying a particular source of the good or service in question. Consequently, a generic term (e.g., book, computer) cannot qualify as a trademark because it is associated in the consuming public’s mind with an entire class of products or services.1 In U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com, the Supreme Court clarified the contours of this long-standing doctrine in trademark law by reaffirming the Lanham Act’s bedrock principle — whether a term is generic depends on its meaning to consumers.2 In doing so, the Supreme Court rejected a nearly per se rule that would have rendered “generic.com” terms ineligible for trademark registration.3 Background Booking.com is a digital travel company that provides hotel reservations and other services under the brand “Booking.com,” which is also the domain name
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2014 Revision)[Effective] 中华人民共和国商标法实施条例(2014 修订) [现行有效]
    Please note: This translation is provided by www.lawinfochina.com with exclusive copyright and can not be reproduced for commercial use. Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2014 Revision)[Effective] 中华人民共和国商标法实施条例(2014 修订) [现行有效] Issuing authority: State Council Document Number: Order No. 651 of the State Council Date issued: 04-29-2014 Level of Authority: Administrative Regulations Area of law: Trademark,Trademark Order of the State Council of the People's Republic of China (No. 651) The Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, as revised, is hereby issued, and shall come into force on May 1, 2014. Premier: Li Keqiang April 29, 2014 Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (Issued by Order No. 358 of the State Council of the People's Republic of China on August 3, 2002, and revised by Order No. 651 of the State Council of the People's Republic of China on April 29, 2014) Chapter I General Provisions Article 1 This Regulation is developed in accordance with the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “ Trademark Law ”). Article 2 The provisions of this Regulation governing goods trademarks shall also apply to service trademarks. Article 3 To request well-known trademark protection under Article 13 of the Trademark Law , a trademark holder shall submit evidential materials proving that the trademark is a well-known trademark. As needed for trying or handling the case, the Trademark Office and the Trademark Appeal Board shall, based on the evidential materials submitted by the party, determine whether the trademark is a well-known trademark in accordance with Article 14 of the Trademark Law .
    [Show full text]
  • Article Title
    International In-house Counsel Journal Vol. 7, No. 25, Autumn 2013, 1 I Can Name that Brand in Three Notes: Non-Traditional Trademarks for Traditional Goods KATHRYN BELLEAU Assistant General Counsel - Intellectual Property and Procurement Legal, Pitney Bowes Inc., USA People are exposed to trademarks on a daily basis. Trademarks are a part of everyone’s everyday life. Trademarks are used on clothing, food, entertainment, cosmetics, etc. Unlike other aspects of law, there is no minimum educational requirement or level of sophistication to understand and/or recognize what a trademark is and how it relates to the goods and/or services with which it is used. Kids can readily recognize a brand from a young age, e.g., FISHER-PRICE toys. Teens recognize the well-known brands, e.g., COKE for soft drinks and NIKE for sports shoes. Along with these words that are used as trademarks, brand owners also use stylized lettering or designs. COCA-COLA uses stylized lettering for their soft drinks and Nike utilizes a Swoosh design on its sports shoes. These designs are also well recognized as trademarks by the general public. What people are less familiar with are the non-traditional marks that companies use to distinguish their goods and/or services from those of their competitors. One of the most common is the use of color. Other non-traditional types would be the non-functional shape of the goods or packaging for the goods; sound, usually in the form of musical notes; texture, the feel of a product or label therefor; finally, smell. All of these non- traditional trademarks need to be handled in a particular manner in order to ensure that rights are established and, once perfected, are not lost by misuse.
    [Show full text]
  • Virtual Property: the Hc Allenges of Regulating Intangible, Exclusionary Property Interests Such As Domain Names David Nelmark
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 3 Article 1 Issue 1 Fall Fall 2004 Virtual Property: The hC allenges of Regulating Intangible, Exclusionary Property Interests such as Domain Names David Nelmark Recommended Citation David Nelmark, Virtual Property: The Challenges of Regulating Intangible, Exclusionary Property Interests such as Domain Names, 3 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 1 (2004). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol3/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Virtual Property: The Challenges of Regulating Intangible, Exclusionary Property Interests Such as Domain Names David Nelmark Fall 2004 VOL. 3, NO. 1 © 2004 by Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Copyright 2004 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 3, Number 1 (Fall 2004) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Virtual Property: The Challenges of Regulating Intangible, Exclusionary Property Interests Such as Domain Names David Nelmark* I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 II. DEFINING VIRTUAL PROPERTY......................................................................2
    [Show full text]