RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE MARK LAW 2005-2006

David LlewelynHead of IP, White & Case (London)Director, IP Academy, Singapore Visiting Professor, King’s College, London

2WHITE & CASE LLP

TRADE MARKS – APPELLATE SYSTEM and ART. 234 EC

ECJ

OHIM Board of Appeal

Court of First Instance

References from National Courts

3WHITE & CASE LLP

AREAS OF KEY DEVELOPMENTS

Absolute grounds for refusal of registration

Relative grounds for refusal of registration

Revocation

Infringement

4WHITE & CASE LLP

ABSOLUTE GROUNDS Distinctiveness / Descriptiveness… The Story So Far

Focus on common language ?

‘BABY-DRY’ (ECJ)

Focus on keeping marks available for common use ?

‘DOUBLEMINT’ (ECJ)

5WHITE & CASE LLP

AND ALSO…

Combinations of descriptive words need to create a phonetic or visual impression to be held distinctive

‘POSTKANTOOR’

Public interest considerations require that distinctive signs are “not unduly restricted” and descriptive signs are “kept free for all”

‘SAT.1’

6WHITE & CASE LLP

ABSOLUTE GROUNDS Distinctiveness / Descriptiveness… NEW DEVELOPMENTS

Can the elements of a composite mark have distinctive character in their own right?

Nestlé SA v. Mars UK Ltd.

Public perception of the mark is of two non distinctive words

BioID v. OHIM

7WHITE & CASE LLP

AND ALSO…

Can a mark be registered in a Member State if it is descriptive of the relevant product or service in the language of another Member State?

‘MATRATZEN’ (AG Jacobs)

8WHITE & CASE LLP

“SHAPE MARKS”

• Assessment of distinctiveness of 3-D shape marks governed by the same criteria which applies to other marks

• Purpose of Article 3(1)(e) of the Directive / Article 7(1)(e) of the CTMR is to prevent trade mark proprietors holding a monopoly in relation to technical solutions

• Shape marks cannot acquire distinctiveness through use

• Shape will not fall outside Article 3(1)(e) or Article 7(1)(e) if its technical function can be achieved through another shape / design

PHILIPS

9WHITE & CASE LLP

ALSO REJECTED…

10WHITE & CASE LLP

DEVELOPMENTS(NEW FAILURES)

“Seen as a whole the mark applied for fails to differentiate itself materially from the ordinary shape of the containers concerned, which are commonly used in trade, but instead appears to be a variant of those shapes”

EUROCERMEX SA v. OHIM

11WHITE & CASE LLP

Other failure

CFI: Advertising costs and market shares: not

detailed;• No data re total sales on relevant market

nor competitors;• Survey only showed awareness of name not

of shape.

AG Colomer:

Appeal should be dismissed

ECJ cannot revise CFI’s assessment of facts

12WHITE & CASE LLP

Other failures….

DEUTSCHE SISI-WERKE GMBH v. OHIM (ECJ)

NESTLÉ WATERS SA v. OHIM (CFI)

13WHITE & CASE LLP

REVOCATION ON GROUNDS OF DECEPTION

Will consumers be confused as to whether this is a medicinal product?

Invalidity and revocation presuppose ACTUAL DECEIT or SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS RISK OF DECEPTION

CLINIQUE

Reasonably circumspect consumers deemed to know that there is not a link between size of publicity markings relating to an increase in a product’s quantity and the size of that increase

MARS

14WHITE & CASE LLP

DECEIVED?…

Can a sign consisting of a person’s name validly be registered or used as a trade mark by others if that registration or use causes the relevant public erroneously to think that such person is in some way connected with the business that owns and uses the mark?

ELIZABETH FLORENCE EMANUEL v. CONTINENTAL SHELF

The AP to the ECJ:

15WHITE & CASE LLP

ECJ:

AP is Judicial Authority within the meaning of Art. 234 EC Treaty;

Actual deceit or sufficiently serious risk of confusion needed.

Average consumer might be influenced in purchasing “Elizabeth Emanuel” garment by imagining she was involved in design but quality and characteristics of it remain guaranteed by new owner;

TM corresponding to name (of designer and first manufacturer) may not by reason of that particular feature alone be refused registration or revoked on ground of deception, in particular where goodwill was assigned together with business.

16WHITE & CASE LLP

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION:Confusingly confusing……

“There may be a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public where the contested sign is composed by juxtaposing the company name of another party and a registered mark which has normal distinctiveness and which, without alone determining the overall impression conveyed by the composite sign, still has an independent distinctive role therein’

MEDION

17WHITE & CASE LLP

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION:Likely to be confused?

CFICFI

Phonetic similarity outweighed by conceptual and visual differences

v. =

Landgericht Hamburg:Opposite conclusion

AG ColomerAG ColomerUrgent to improve

harmonisation

MUEHLENS v. OHIM

ECJ

Appeal dismissed. No comment on national court.

18WHITE & CASE LLP

RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSALLikelihood of confusion

“Conceptual differences can in certain circumstances counteract the visual and phonetic similarities between the signs concerned”

CLAUDE RUIZ-PICASSO & OTHERS v. OHIM

PICARO

19WHITE & CASE LLP

INFRINGEMENT

GILLETTE v. LA LABORATORIES OY

‘All Parason FLEXOR® and all Gillette SENSOR® HANDLES are COMPATIBLE with this razor blade’ !

20WHITE & CASE LLP

AND

Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth: Does use of “Opel-lighting” logo (registered, inter alia, for toys) on remote control

model cars (sold under defendant’s own marks) constitute use/infringement?

AG RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER: BMW, Gillette, Arsenal and Budweiser apply. Autec models of Opel cars do not hamper origin function of trade mark Opel. This

would only be the case where Autec product gave the impression of a "material link“, such as a licence or endorsement, with Opel itself.

ADAM OPEL AG v. AUTEC AG

21WHITE & CASE LLP

INFRINGEMENTThe importance of consumer’s perception

ECJ:

Infringement to be determined on the basis of public’s perception of trade mark at the time the use of similar mark began.

Order cessation of use not appropriate when infringed mark has lost distinctiveness following inactivity of proprietor;

LEVI STRAUSS & CO. v. CASUCCI SPA

22WHITE & CASE LLP

INFRINGEMENT AND PARALLEL IMPORTS

Goods in transit but which are not cleared by customs have not been “imported” into the EU

No free circulation no infringement

CLASS INTERNATIONAL v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY & OTHERS

23WHITE & CASE LLP

RETAIL SERVICES

Protection for retail services… a breakthrough

PRAKTIKER BAU UND HEIMWERKERMARKTE AG

24WHITE & CASE LLP

THE END

Thank you