DOCSLIB.ORG

The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) The Secretary General German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 11 Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 11 . RheinAtrium . 50668 Köln . Germany RheinAtrium 50668 Köln Phone +49 (0) 221 650 65-151 Fax +49 (0) 221 650 65-205 Email office@grur.de www.grur.org July 1, 2013 Full English Version Opinion of the German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (Deutsche Vereinigung für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht e.V.) regarding the European Commission proposal for a recast of the Trade Mark Directive The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) is a scientific non-profit as- sociation. Its statutory purpose is the academic advancement and development of industrial property, copyright and competition law at the German, European and international level. For fulfilling these tasks, GRUR provides assistance to the legislative bodies and to authorities competent for issues of intellectu- al property law, organises conferences, workshops and further education courses, provides financial aid to selected university chairs and research projects and also publishes four leading German professional IP law journals (GRUR, GRUR International, GRUR-RR and GRUR-Prax.) With over 5,250 members coming from 52 countries, the association offers an umbrella for a wide range of IP professionals: law- yers, patent attorneys, judges, academics, representatives of the specific public authorities and of the international organisations as well as enterprises dealing with issues of intellectual property. On 27 March 2013 the European Commission presented proposals for an amendment of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (Regulation) and for a recast of Directive 2008/95/EC for the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Directive). On 13 June 2013 GRUR presented comprehensive comments, in German, on the proposals relating to the Directive. The following constitutes a summary of these comments. Observations on the Regulation will be submitted at a later date. Preliminary Remarks Concerning Interconnection Between the Proposals Notwithstanding the fact that this Opinion focuses on the proposal for a recast of the Trademark Di- rective that was first addressed by the Council working group, GRUR considers it necessary to treat the recast of the Trademark Directive and the amendments to the Regulation on the Community Trademark and the Fees Regulation as a unified process. This should apply not only to links in contents but also to the chronology. The recast Directive should not enter into force without simultaneous adoption of the Regulation. 1 / 21 The GRUR trademarks and the green colour are registered trademarks of the Association. 1. General Remarks 1.1. Recast of the Directive The Commission has proposed a recast of the Directive instead of amendments to the text presently in force. In view of the large number of amendments and additions, this seems reasonable. 1.2. Extent of Harmonization The Commission has proposed extensive harmonization which would entail not only further alignment of substantive law, but also an alignment of trade mark procedures before the national authorities so as to match essentially the European procedures before the OHIM. This initiative is to be welcomed, although under the aspect of subsidiarity doubts could arise in individ- ual cases as to whether such an extensive alignment is necessary. The individual harmonization pro- posals relating to national procedures will be commented on when the relevant provisions are ad- dressed. 1.3. Terms, Definitions The Commission has proposed using the term “European trade mark” instead of “Community trade mark”. The present “Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market”, also known under the abbrevia- tions “HABM”, “OHIM” and “OAMI”, is to be renamed the “European Union Trade Marks and Designs Agency”. The terms “Community” and “Community law” are to be replaced by “Union” and “Union law”. The reason stated is that terms have changed since the Lisbon Treaties; insofar as the future “Agency” is concerned, an alleged agreement between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission is men- tioned. GRUR considers the term “European” as in “European trade mark” to be inappropriate. Europe is larger than the EU. If the term “Community” can no longer be used in future and instead the terms “Union” or “European Union” are used, it seems logical that trade mark law within the Union should be regulated accordingly. However, this means that the solo term “European” cannot be accepted. In this context preference should be given to the term “European Union trade mark” or the abbreviated form “EU trademark” for the individual trade mark. GRUR considers the renaming of the Office in Alicante to be superfluous, especially since in the mean- time the Office performs responsibilities that go beyond the confines of trade mark and design protec- tion. If renaming of the Office is considered necessary at all, the term “Agency”, which is highly unusual for an authority of this kind not only in German-speaking regions, should definitely not be used, but the term “Office” instead. 1.4. Absent Provisions The Commission has for the most part followed the proposals of the Max Planck Study, while failing to adopt a number of more far-reaching suggestions. GRUR would welcome realization of at least the fol- lowing proposals. 2 / 21 1.4.1 Addition of Recitals The Max Planck Study contains several recitals that explain the legal foundation of trade mark law as well as individual provisions, and which can therefore provide assistance in interpreting and applying the law. In substantive law especially, such explanations can enhance both legal certainty and a unified legal practice. For example, in the law as it stands and in the Commission proposals there is no indication of the pur- pose of trade mark law or of the interests meriting protection. In this respect, the ECJ regularly refers to the principle of undistorted competition, without however providing further specification in a form going beyond the judgment in a specific case. In this respect, the following addition to the Preamble is pro- posed in line with the findings of the Max Planck Study: “Trade mark law serves to ensure undistorted competition. In the light of those principles, the in- terests of trade mark proprietors, consumers and competitors have to be balanced against one another. In principle none of the interests takes precedence over others.” The Preamble could also be supplemented where the legislative text requires explanation, without this necessarily leading to an amendment of the version of trade mark law in force. This applies, for exam- ple, to the scope of trade mark protection in case of “double identity” (see infra No. 2.7.2; see also No. 2.2.4 on absolute grounds for refusal of protection). 1.4.2 Protection Throughout the Entire Sovereign Territory The Commission proposals should be clarified to the effect that trade mark protection applies through- out the entire sovereign territory of the relevant Member State and is not restricted to the internal market following release of the goods for free circulation within the Community. The trade mark proprietor has to be in a position to prevent use in territorial waters, free ports and customs exclaves belonging to the territory of the relevant country of protection. The proposed regulation of transit goods is commented in No. 2.7.8 below. 1.4.3 Deletion of Art. 3(1)(e)(iii) Trade Mark Directive The ground for exclusion set out in Art. 3(1)(e)(iii) of the Trade Mark Directive has proved to be imprac- ticable and should therefore be deleted. The fact that goods that are valued solely for their shape are to be protected not as trade marks, but if appropriate as designs, should not change. However, this does not apply where the appreciation of the goods is based primarily on the high recognition factor of the shape and its attribution to a certain source. This result cannot be achieved on the basis of the law presently in force. By deleting Art. 3(1)(e)(iii) of the Trade Mark Directive, the path would be cleared for the application of general provisions: where the appreciation of the shape of goods is purely aesthetic, distinctive character would have to be denied under Art. 3(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive; however, the trade mark could still be registered by overcoming the ground for refusal on the basis of distinctive character acquired in accordance with Art. 3(3) of the Trade Mark Directive. 3 / 21 1.4.3 Use of Trade Marks for Other Purposes, Art. 5(5) Trade Mark Directive The proposals by the Commission do not affect the current rule according to which the harmonized area of trade mark protection relates solely to use of the mark in order to distinguish goods and services. This means that the protection of signs used in order to designate enterprises remains without harmonization unless such designation simultaneously serves to distinguish goods and services (see infra No. 2.7.5). This can give rise to difficult questions of distinction in practice, affecting legal certainty. The same ap- plies to the distinction between the distinguishing and merely descriptive or decorative use of trade marks, which likewise cannot be considered harmonized yet. Whereas in German law other legal provi- sions such as the law on unfair competition can be applied in this respect in order to fill potential gaps, the legal situation in other countries is very unclear, which can give rise to severe problems especially in view of the enforcement of Community trade mark rights. In view of the fact that the present recast of the Trade Mark Directive sets the signals for the law govern- ing trade marks and distinctive signs in the coming decades, such severe gaps in harmonization should be filled if at all possible.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Official Journal C 244 of the European Union
    Official Journal C 244 of the European Union Volume 59 English edition Information and Notices 5 July 2016 Contents II Information INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES European Commission 2016/C 244/01 Communication from the Commission amending the Annex to the Communication to the Member States on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to short-term export-credit insurance ............................................................................. 1 IV Notices NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES European Commission 2016/C 244/02 Euro exchange rates .............................................................................................................. 3 2016/C 244/03 Commission notice on the customs enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights concerning goods brought into the customs territory of the Union without being released for free circulation including goods in transit .................................................................................................................... 4 2016/C 244/04 Commission notice concerning the date of application of the Regional Convention on pan-Euro- Mediterranean preferential rules of origin or the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation between the Contracting Parties to this Convention .................................................... 10 EN NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES 2016/C 244/05 United Kingdom Government notice concerning
    [Show full text]
  • City Research Online
    City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: McDonagh, L. and Mimler, M. (2017). Intellectual Property Law and Brexit: A Retreat or a Reaffirmation of Jurisdiction? In: Dougan, M. (Ed.), The UK after Brexit. (pp. 159-179). Cambridge, UK: Intersentia. ISBN 1780684711 This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/17634/ Link to published version: Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ publications@city.ac.uk CHAPTER 8 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND BREXIT: A RETREAT OR A REAFFIRMATION OF JURISDICTION? Luke McDonagh and Marc Mimler* Intellectual Property Law and Brexit 1. INTRODUCTION The effect of European Union law on intellectual property (IP) law in the United Kingdom has been profound. There is no area of IP law that does not feature EU legislation or CJEU case law. In fact, it may be the most ‘Europeanised’ area of private law.1 For this reason, ‘Brexit’ will undoubtedly have a massive impact on the current IP framework in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Eucrim 1/2016
    eucrim 2016 /1 THE EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW ASSOCIATIONS‘ FORUM Focus: Procedural Rights and Cooperation – New Tendencies Dossier particulier: Droits procéduraux et coopération – nouvelles tendances Schwerpunktthema: Verfahrensgarantien und Zusammenarbeit – neue Tendenzen The Directive on the Presumption of Innocence and the Right to Be Present at Trial Steven Cras and Anže Erbežnik The Directive on the Presumption of Innocence. A Missed Opportunity for Legal Persons? Stijn Lamberigts Inaudito reo Proceedings, Defence Rights, and Harmonisation Goals in the EU Prof. Dr. Stefano Ruggeri Paving the Way for Improved Mutual Assistance in the Context of Customs Fraud Emilia Porebska Können die Regelungen über die Zusammenarbeit der EU-Mitgliedstaaten bei der Strafverfolgung kurzerhand aufgehoben werden? Ulrich Schulz Vollstreckungshilfe zwischen Deutschland und Taiwan auf neuer Grundlage Dr. Ralf Riegel and Dr. Franca Fülle 2016 / 1 ISSUE / ÉDITION / AUSGABE The Associations for European Criminal Law and the Protection of Financial Interests of the EU is a network of academics and practitioners. The aim of this cooperation is to develop a European criminal law which both respects civil liberties and at the same time protects European citizens and the European institutions effectively. Joint seminars, joint research projects and annual meetings of the associations’ presidents are organised to achieve this aim. Contents News* Articles European Union Procedural Rights and Cooperation – New Tendencies Foundations Procedural Criminal Law 25 The Directive on the Presumption of 2 Fundamental Rights 13 Procedural Safeguards Innocence and the Right to Be Present at 2 Area of Freedom, Security 13 Data Protection Trial. Genesis and Description of the New and Justice 15 Ne bis in idem EU-Measure 3 Schengen Steven Cras and Anže Erbežnik Cooperation 36 The Directive on the Presumption of In- Institutions 16 European Arrest Warrant nocence.
    [Show full text]
  • Governance by Committee: the Role of Committees in European Policy Making and Policy
    Governance by Committee: The Role of Committees in European Policy Making and Policy Research Paper 00/GHA Return to Introduction STATE OF THE ART REPORT CONTRACT NUMBER: HPSE-CT-1999-00019 PROJECT NUMBER: SERD-1999-00128 TITLE: GOVERNANCE BY COMMITTEE, THE ROLE OF COMMITTEES IN EUROPEAN POLICY-MAKING AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION MAASTRICHT, MAY 2000 Table of Contents 1. General Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4 Subproject 1: The Standing Committees in the European Parliament 2.1..................Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6 2.2..................The Evolution of the European Parliament: From Consultative ............................... 6 Assembly to Co-legislator 2.2.1...............The EP as a Legislative Actor after Maastricht......................................................... 7 2.2.2...............EP and Council on an Even Footing after Amsterdam.............................................. 8 2.2.2.1. ..........The Streamlining of the Co-decision Procedure........................................................ 9 2.3..................The Role of EP Committees in the Legislative Process ............................................ 10 2.3.1...............Membership in EP Committees.................................................................................12 2.3.2...............Powers and Competences of EP Committees...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Repackaging of Pharmaceutical Products and Parallel Trade in the EU
    Legal Feature The Repackaging of Pharmaceutical Products and Parallel Trade in the EU Héctor Armengod and Laura Melusine Baudenbacher examine how European case law affects trademark owners’ ability to lawfully oppose further marketing of their repackaged product. The question of whether pharmaceutical products can be repackaged by parallel traders has been – and continues to be – a recurrent topic before the European Court of Justice. In the European Union, each member state, based on its own healthcare policy, dictates Price differences among the prices of the drugs sold in its territory. This leads to significant differences in the price of EU member states lead to pharmaceuticals across the EU. These differences create business opportunities for parallel business opportunities for importers who can buy the drugs in those countries where they are cheaper and import them in parallel importers the more expensive ones, thereby obtaining a lucrative margin. The packaging and labelling of pharmaceuticals is highly regulated both at EU and member state level, and a product acquired in a given member state often needs to be repackaged before it is placed on the market of a different member state. Repackaging can interfere with the trademark rights of the original supplier of the product. The protection of trademark rights has been recognised by the ECJ as an essential element in the system of undistorted competition which the EC Treaty seeks to establish and maintain1. The exercise of these rights can, however, be in conflict with the principle of free movement of goods, which is one of the cornerstones of the EU internal market.
    [Show full text]
  • Collective Rights Management in the Digital Single Market
    Implementation of the EU Trade Mark Directive 2015 Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office Implementation of the EU Trade Mark Directive 2015 Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 Relevance of UK withdrawal from the EU ......................................................... 1 Our approach to implementation ...................................................................... 2 About this consultation ............................................................................................ 2 Proposed amendments in detail ............................................................................. 3 Article 3: Signs of which a trade mark may consist .......................................... 3 Article 3: Removal of requirement for ‘graphic representation’ in section 1 - new file formats ................................................................. 3 Article 3 (and Article 39.2): ‘Competent authorities’ ............................... 4 Article 4: Absolute grounds for refusal ............................................................ 5 Article 4.1(i),(j),(k) & (l) – specific references to geographical indications, traditional terms for wine, etc .............................................. 5 Article 4.5: distinctive character acquired after application date, but before registration date (optional) ............................................ 6 Article 5: Relative Grounds for refusal or invalidity ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • EU Trade Marks: When Is the Right Time for a Face Lift?
    The In-House Lawyer www.inhouselawyer.co.uk The In-House Lawyer Spring 2016 TMT Focus EU trade marks: when is the right time for a face lift? By John R Olsen, partner, Locke Lord t appears that the right time for a face lift is conceived EU trade mark and the Office for when the spirit needs a nuance of rejuvenation Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) and the elements for doing so are all to hand. itself, which is to be renamed the European Union ISimilarly, as a brand is the face of an organisation Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) . The new the time for a ‘face lift’ of a business organisation is Directive came into force on 13 January 2016, when opportunities present themselves and there is and is intended to harmonise further the national a need to revitalise. The European Parliament has trade mark systems and laws of the individual now provided that opportunity and necessity for member states of the European Union. businesses to think seriously about getting a new face for their brands in view of the new legislation. Summary of key administrative changes and alterations in examination practice John R Olsen Introduction Pricing At the end of December 2015, the European Of importance to smaller companies, individuals Partner, Locke Lord Parliament adopted a reform package for European and start-ups is the abolition of the previously john.olsen@lockelord.com trade marks which will result ultimately in the inflexible ‘three classes for one’ pricing structure, implementation of substantial changes to European whereby the cost of filing for a CTM in up to trade mark law throughout the course of 2016 – and three classes was fixed, so that an application beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • The European IP Bulletin
    The European IP Bulletin The Intellectual Property, Media & Technology Department Issue 28, January 2006 McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP 7 Bishopsgate London EC2N 3AR Tel: +44 20 7577 6900 Fax: +44 20 7577 6950 www.mwe.com www.mwe.com/london Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf London Los Angeles Miami Munich New York Orange County Rome San Diego Silicon Valley Washington, D.C. SUMMARY OF PAGE CONTENTS NO. HOT TOPICS 1. WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION MEMBERS AGREE TO AMEND THE 1 TRIPS AGREEMENT ON PATENTS AND PUBLIC HEALTH The decision of the General Council of 6 December 2005 on the amendment of the TRIPS Agreement makes the flexibilities contained in the 2003 decision on patents and public health permanent. This in effect will lead to the first amendment of a core WTO Agreement. 2. UK CHANCELLOR ANNOUNCES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REVIEW 2 As part of his Pre-Budget Report Package, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, has announced the launch of an independent review of intellectual property in the UK, to be headed by the former editor of the Financial Times. COPYRIGHT 3. SONY BMG’S ANTI-PIRACY SOFTWARE IN BIG TROUBLE 3 Sony BMG’s trouble started immediately following Windows programming expert Mark Russinovich's discovery that Sony’s anti- piracy software used virus-like techniques to stop illegal copies being made. There have been several class action lawsuits launched against both Sony BMG and First4Internet. Widespread pressure has made Sony BMG take actions to settle the dispute. 4. EVALUATION OF EU RULES ON DATABASES 4 The European Commission has published an evaluation of the protection EU law gives to databases.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing the EU Trade Marks Directive
    Summary: Implementing the EU Trade Marks Directive What's changing in national trade mark law? 2019 Contents Summary 1 Comparative table 2 Benelux 3 France 4 Germany 5 Italy 6 Poland 7 Key contacts 9 1 Summary Andreas Renck (Office Managing Partner, Alicante) Background Our first IP Outlook webinar of 2019 focused on the implementation of the EU Trade Marks Directive and its impact across various Member States. EU Member States were required to implement the Directive into national law by 14 January 2019 (14 January 2023 for implementing cancellation proceedings before trade mark offices). The Directive aims to harmonise the conditions for obtaining and continuing to hold a registered trade mark so that they are, in the main, identical in Member States. The key points of new Trade Mark Directive are: Seizure of Goods in Transit, Preparatory acts of infringement Date change for time to prove use in contentious proceedings Request for proof of use possible both in opposition, invalidity and infringement actions Intervening Rights (dormant marks) Implementation of Certification Marks Registration of rights in rem and licences Cancellation proceedings before the Trade Mark Offices (TMOs) Our focus This webinar summary explores how some of the EU Member States are handling the implementation of the Directive: what the most substantive changes are in each Member State; where brand owners might face challenges and what new opportunities exist for businesses protecting and enforcing their brands across the EU. We also address how to best deal with the new procedural rules for cancellation proceedings before TMOs that will be set in various member states.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 20 3-2-2011
    Page 1 of 20 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL CRUZ VILLALÓN delivered on 3 February 2011 (1) Joined Cases C-446/09 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd Far East Sourcing Ltd Röhlig Hong Kong Ltd and Röhlig Belgium NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen, Belgium) Case C-495/09 Nokia Corporation v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, United Kingdom) (Goods placed under the external transit procedure – Intellectual property rights – Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 and Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 – Treatment of goods in transit as if they were goods produced in the territory of the Union (‘production fiction’) – Conditions governing action by the customs authorities in cases where goods in transit are counterfeit or pirated – Suspected infringement of an intellectual property right) Table of contents I – Introduction II – Legal framework A – Regulation No 3295/94 http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79889796C190... 3-2-2011 Page 2 of 20 B – Regulation No 1383/2003 III – The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling A – Philips B – Nokia IV – The procedure before the Court of Justice V – A preliminary matter: similarities and differences between Nokia and Philips VI – Analysis of the question referred for
    [Show full text]
  • The Communicative Aspects of Trade Marks : a Legal, Functional and Economic Analysis
    The communicative aspects of trade marks : a legal, functional and economic analysis. Maniatis, Spyros M The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author For additional information about this publication click this link. http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/1659 Information about this research object was correct at the time of download; we occasionally make corrections to records, please therefore check the published record when citing. For more information contact scholarlycommunications@qmul.ac.uk THE COMMUNICATIVE ASPECTS OF TRADE MARKS: A LEGAL, FUNCTIONAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS by SPYROS M. MANIATIS A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Intellectual Property Law Unit Centre for Commercial Law Studies Queen Mary and Westfield College University of London July 1998 Table of Contents Page Acknowledgments .9 Abstract .10 CHAPTER I Introduction .................................................................................................................. 11 1.1. Defining trade marks as communicators and assets.............................................11 1.2. Some trade mark problems...................................................................................12 1.3. The scope and objectives of this thesis ................................................................13 1.4. The tools for evaluating the hypothesis................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Abolition of Graphical Representation in EU Trademark Directive: Should Countries with Similar Provisions Follow EU’S Footsteps?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NOPR Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 24, May-July 2019, pp 62-68 Abolition of Graphical Representation in EU Trademark Directive: Should Countries with Similar Provisions Follow EU’s Footsteps? Tolulope Anthony Adekola† School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR Received: 18 March 2019; accepted: 23 July 2019 Since the graphical representation requirement for trademark registration was abolished in the European Union, the need to critically appraise its effect on the registration of Non-Traditional Marks has become necessary. The question as to whether or not countries with similar provisions for graphical representation in their trademark laws should follow in the footsteps of the European Union has also become relevant. This paper critically evaluates the effect of the removal of the graphical representation requirement on the registration of olfactory, tactile and gustatory marks by offering arguments, examples and legal authorities to support its view. The paper found that even though the EU has recently relaxed the graphical representation requirement, this step makes very little practical difference to the registrability of olfactory, tactile and gustatory marks. The reason for the said category of mark’s failure to satisfy the graphical representation requirement prior to its abolition still persists under the revised EU registration system. In this regard, the paper concludes that the changes brought about by the EU Trademark Reform Package are more cosmetic than substantive with regard to the registration of olfactory tactile and gustatory marks.
    [Show full text]