Upload
corey-cook
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
law firm around the world law firm around the world law firm around the world law firm around the world
Some Recent Developments in EU and UK Trade Mark Law16th April 2004, IPD Hong Kong
David Llewelyn
Visiting Professor, King’s College London; Partner, White & Case (London); Executive Chairman, Ipr-X (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd
Appellate System
OHIM Board of Appeal
Court of First Instance (“CFI”)
European Court of Justice (“ECJ”)
Yes… (1) If Capable of Being Graphically Represented… and
….but how can a smell be ‘graphically represented’?
(2) If Capable of Denoting Trade Origin
Can you recognise the manufacturer solely from the shade of purple??
Shape Marks
SOCIÉTÉ DE PRODUITS NESTLÉ S.A. v. UNILEVER PLC
(High Court – U.K.)
PRODUCT RECOGNITION ALONENOT SUFFICIENT
Colour Marks
LIBERTEL GROEP B.V. (ECJ reference from the Netherlands)
ANDREAS STIHL AG v. OHIM (CFI)
Colour Marks… conclusion
Colour marks will only be registered where there is evidence of prior use – LIBERTEL GROEP
B.V.
CONSUMER EDUCATION
Distinctiveness v. Descriptiveness
THE PRAGMATIC APPROACH
‘VITALITE’ (CFI)
‘DOUBLEMINT’ (CFI)
‘EASYBANK’ (CFI)
Distinctiveness v. Descriptiveness
PROVISIONALLY ACCEPTED AFTER ‘BABY DRY’ (ECJ)
‘NEW BORN BABY’ (CFI)
‘ULTRAPLUS’ (CFI)
The UltraPlus range
But now we have DOUBLEMINT
‘designates characteristics’
‘suggestive of characteristics’
…. where do you draw the line?
ECJ – ‘DOUBLEMINT’
X
ECJ Decision in OHIM v Wm Wrigley Jr Company
“A sign must therefore be refused registration under [Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation no.
40/94] if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the
goods or services concerned.”
ECJ Decision in OHIM –v- Wm Wrigley Jr Company
From DOUBLEMINT it would appear that BABY DRY has been restricted:
A mark may now be devoid of distinctive character even where there is one purely descriptive meaning amongst other non-descriptive ones.
Need to Keep Free….
LIBERTEL GROEP B.V. (ECJ reference from the Netherlands)
WIDER APPLICATION
‘LINDE’ (ECJ Reference from Germany)
Customary Usage
ECJ – Art. 7(1)(d) only excludes words customarily used to designate goods or services in question
MERZ & KRELL GMBH(ECJ reference from Germany)
ALCON v. OHIM (CFI)
Extension of Protection for Marks With a ‘Reputation’
DAVIDOFF & CIE SA & ZINO DAVIDOFF SA v. GOFKID LTD.(ECJ reference from Germany)
ADIDAS SALOMON A.G. & ADIDAS BENELUX B.V. v. FITNESSWORLD TRADING LTD.
(ECJ – Opinion of A.G. Jacobs)