ECTA 2005 1 - Home - ECTA - European Communities Trade ... · PDF fileECTA 2005 12 Member...

ECTA 2005 1

Recent Trade Mark Cases ECJ and CFI

ECTA

25th Annual Conference

ECTA 2005 2


London

10 June 2005

Alexander v. Mühlendahl

Vice-President

Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

Trade Mark Cases

Registrability

Conflicts

ECTA 2005 3

Conflicts

Procedure

Trade Mark Cases

Registrability

• Word marks

ECTA 2005 4

• Word marks

Trade Mark Cases Before the European Court of Justice

Campina Melkunie/BBM

(„BIOMILD“)

ECTA 2005 5

(„BIOMILD“)

Case C-265/00

Hearing 15 November 2001

Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer 31 January 2002

Rapporteur Macken

Decision 12 February 2004

C-265/00Campina Melkunie/BBM

Article 3(1)(c) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark consisting of a neologism composed of elements, each of which is descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, is itself descriptive of the

ECTA 2005 6

respect of which registration is sought, is itself descriptive of the characteristics of those goods or services for the purposes of that provision, unless there is a perceptible difference between the neologism and the mere sum of its parts: that assumes that, because of the unusual nature of the combination in relation to the goods or services, the word creates an impression which is sufficiently far removed from that produced by the mere combination of meanings lent by the elements of which it is composed, with the result that the word is more than the sum of its parts.


KPN & PTT/BBM („POSTKANTOOR“)

Case C-363/99

ECTA 2005 7

Case C-363/99



Rapporteur Macken

Decision 12 February 2004

C-363/99KPN & PTT/BBM

Descriptiveness/Distinctiveness

Additional issues

ECTA 2005 8

Additional issues

Aural impression

All characteristics

Restriction practice

Practice in other jurisdictions


Aural impression99. However, such a combination may not be descriptive within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive, provided that it

ECTA 2005 9

the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive, provided that it creates an impression which is sufficiently far removed from that produced by the simple combination of those elements. In the case of a word mark, which is intended to be heard as much as to be read, that condition must be satisfied as regards both the aural and the visual impression produced by the mark.


All characteristics102. It is also irrelevant whether the characteristics of the goods or services which may be the subject of the description are commercially essential or merely ancillary. The wording of Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive does not draw any distinction by

ECTA 2005 10

3(1)(c) of the Directive does not draw any distinction by reference to the characteristics which may be designated by the signs or indications of which the mark consists. In fact, in the light of the public interest underlying the provision, any undertaking must be able freely to use such signs and indications to describe any characteristic whatsoever of its own goods, irrespective of how significant the characteristic may be commercially.


Restriction practice117. In those circumstances, the answer to the eighth question must be that the Directive prevents a trade mark registration authority from registering a mark for certain goods or services on condition that they do not possess a particular characteristic.

ECTA 2005 11

condition that they do not possess a particular characteristic.


Registrations in other jurisdictionsThe fact that a trade mark has been registered in a Member State in respect of certain goods or services has no bearing on the examination by the trade mark registration authority of another

ECTA 2005 12

examination by the trade mark registration authority of another Member State of an application for registration of a similar mark in respect of goods or services similar to those in respect of which the first mark was registered.


Telefon und Buch VerlagsgmbH/OHIM („UNIVERSALTELEFONBUCH“, „UNIVER-SALKOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICHNIS“)

ECTA 2005 13

SALKOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICHNIS“)

Joined Cases C-326/01 P

Hearing: no hearing

Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer

Rapporteur Puissochet

Decision/Order 5 Februar 2004


Streamserve Inc./OHIM

(„STREAMSERVE“)

ECTA 2005 14

Case C-150/02 P

Hearing: no hearing

Advocate General Jacobs


Decision/Order 5 February 2004


Nichols plc/U.K. Patent Office („Nichols“)

Case C-404/02

ECTA 2005 15



Rapporteur Gulmann

Decision 16 September 2004


Alcon Inc./OHIM (Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH) („BSS“)

Case C-192/03 P, T-237/01

ECTA 2005 16

Case C-192/03 P, T-237/01

Hearing (no hearing)

Advocate General Poiares Maduro


Order 5 October 2004

Appeal from CFI decision 5 March 2002


OHIM/Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH

(„DAS PRINZIP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT“)

Case C-64/02 P

ECTA 2005 17

Case C-64/02 P

Hearing 5 May 2004

Advocate General Poiares Maduro 17 June 2004

Rapporteur Timmermans

Decision 21 October 2004


SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH/OHIM

(„SAT.2“)

Case C-329/02 P, T-323/00

ECTA 2005 18

Case C-329/02 P, T-323/00

Hearing 8 January 2004

Advocate General Jacobs 11 March 2004



Decision of CFI annulled

C-329/02 P - T-323/00Satelliten-Fernsehen/OHIM

Distinctiveness and public interestFindings of the Court26 As regards the registration as trade marks of colours per se, not spatially delimited, the Court has already ruled, in Libertel, paragraph 60, that the public interest

ECTA 2005 19

per se, not spatially delimited, the Court has already ruled, in Libertel, paragraph 60, that the public interest underlying Article 3(1)(b) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), a provision which is identical to Article 7(1)(b) of the regulation, is aimed at the need not to restrict unduly the availability of colours for the other operators who offer for sale goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought.

C-329/02 P - T-323/00Satelliten-Fernsehen/OHIM

27 Furthermore, in view of the extent of the protection afforded to a trade mark by the regulation, the public interest underlying Article 7(1)(b) of the regulation is, manifestly, indissociable from the essential function of a trade mark, …

ECTA 2005 20

trade mark, …


Nestle/Mars („Have a Break …)

Case C-353/03

Hearing

ECTA 2005 21

Hearing

Advocate General Kokott

Rapporteur

Decision


Matratzen Concord/Hukla („MATRATZEN“)

Case C-421/04

Hearing

ECTA 2005 22

Hearing

Advocate General

Rapporteur

Decision


Bovemij/BBM („EUROPOLIS“)

Case C-

Hearing

ECTA 2005 23

Hearing

Advocate General

Rapporteur

Decision


BioID/OHIM („BioID“)

Case C-37/03 P, T-91/00

ECTA 2005 24

Hearing

Advocate General Leger 2 June 2005

Rapporteur

Decision

Appeal from CFI decision of 5 December 2002


OHIM/Zapf Creations AG

(„New Born Baby“)

Case C-498/01 P

ECTA 2005 25

Case C-498/01 P

Hearing 8 January 2004

Advocate General Jacobs 19 February 2004

Application withdrawn


Audi AG/OHIM („TDI“)

Case C-82/04 P, T-16/02

ECTA 2005 26


Appeal from CFI decision 3 December 2003


OHIM/Deutsche Post Express GmbH („Europremium“)

Case C-121/05 P, T-334/03

ECTA 2005 27

Case C-121/05 P, T-334/03

Appeal from CFI decision 13 January 2005


Trade Mark Cases Before the Court of First Instance

Word marks in the CFI

• Accepted as registrable

ECTA 2005 28

• Accepted as registrable

CFI: Registrable word marks

• CINE ACTION (in part) T-135/99

• CINE COMEDY (in part) T-136/99

• EUROHEALTH (in part) T-359/99

ECTA 2005 29


• VITALITE (in part) T-24/00

• EUROCOOL T-34/00

• EASYBANK T-87/00

CFI: Registrable word marks

• TELE AID (in part) T-335/00

• CARCARD (in part) T-336/00

• TRUCKCARD (in part) T-358/00

• ELLOS (in part) T-219/00

ECTA 2005 30


• SAT.2 (in part) T-323/00

• UltraPlus T-360/00

• Europremium T-334/03 (appealed)

• CELLTECH T-260/03



• Refused as unregistrable

ECTA 2005 31

• Refused as unregistrable

CFI: Unregistrable word marks

• OPTIONS T-91/98

• CINE ACTION (in part) T-135/99

• CINE COMEDY (in part) T-136/99

• GIROFORM T-331/99

ECTA 2005 32

• GIROFORM T-331/99

• TRUSTEDLINK T-345/99


• INVESTORWORLD T-360/99

• VITALITE (in part) T-24/00


• electronica T-32/00

• LITE T-79/00



ECTA 2005 33


• CARCARD (in part) T-356/00

• TRUCKCARD (in part) T-358/00


• Kit Pro T-79/01

• Kit Super Pro T-86/01

• Real People Real Solutions T-130/01

• ECOPY T-247/01

ECTA 2005 34

• ECOPY T-247/01

• OLDENBURGER T-295/01


• TDI T-16/02 (appealed) (application withdrawn)

• Secureclient T-89/02

• Looks Like Grass … Feels Like Grass ...

ECTA 2005 35

• Looks Like Grass … Feels Like Grass ... Plays Like Grass T-216/02

• Robotunits T-222/02

• Bestpartner T-270/02

• Mehr für Ihr Geld T-281/02

• TELEPHARMACY SOLUTIONS T-289/02


• LIMO T-311/02

• Quick T-348/02

• SnTEM, SnPUR, SnMIX T-367/02, T-388/02, T-369/02

ECTA 2005 36

T-388/02, T-369/02

• QUICK-GRIP T-61/03

• Nurseryroom T-173/03

• APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION T-183/03

• Bioknowledge T-387/03

• MunichFinancialServices T-316/03

Trade Mark Cases


• Pending

ECTA 2005 37

• Pending

CFI: Pending word marks

• TOP T-242/02

•W@P T-37/03

• DigiFilm T-178/03

• DigiFilmMaker T-179/03

ECTA 2005 38

• DigiFilmMaker T-179/03

• map&guide T-302/03

• CLIMATIC T-306/03

• ROCKBASS T-315/03

• LIVE RICHLY T-320/03

•WEISSE SEITEN T-322/03

CFI: Pending word marks

• PAPERLAB T-19/04

• Online-Bus T-135/04

• Hairtransfer T-204/04

• 3D-Panorama T-45/05

ECTA 2005 39

• 3D-Panorama T-45/05

• Telekom Global Net T-72/05

• DELTA T-159/05

ECTA 2005 40

Recent Trade Mark Cases ECJ and CFI

ECTA


ECTA 2005 41


London

10 June 2005

Alexander v. Mühlendahl

Vice-President

Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

Trade Mark Cases

Registrability

ECTA 2005 42

Registrability

• Figurative marks

T-337/99Henkel KG aA

refused

ECTA 2005 43

T-122/01Best Buy Concepts, Inc.

refused

ECTA 2005 44

T-128/01DaimlerChrysler Corp.

accepted

ECTA 2005 45

T-160/02Naipes Heraclio/Societe France

Cartes - refused

ECTA 2005 46


Cartes - refused

ECTA 2005 47


Cartes - refused

ECTA 2005 48

Trade Mark Cases

Registrability

ECTA 2005 49

Registrability

• 3D marks


Dyson/UK Patent Office

Transparent bin

Case C-321/03

ECTA 2005 50

Case C-321/03

Advocate General

Rapporteur

Hearing

Decision

European Court of Justice

Deutsche SiSi Werke GmbH v. OHIM

(„Standbeutel“)

C-173/04 P (T-146/02 - T-153/02 - R 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 747, 748/1999-2)

ECTA 2005 51

720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 747, 748/1999-2)

Case filed

Hearing

Decision 28 January 2004

refused

Appeal to ECJ

C-173/04 P (T-146-153/02)Deutsche SiSi-Werke

CTM 523048

ECTA 2005 52


Eurocermex SA/OHIM

(„CORONA bottle“)

C-286/04 P (T-399/02)

ECTA 2005 53

Case filed

Hearing

Decision

Appeal to ECJ from CFI Decision of 29 April 2004

C-286/04 P (T-399/02)Eurocermex SA

ECTA 2005 54


August Storck KG

(„Werther‘s Bonbons“)

C-24/05 P (T-396/02)

ECTA 2005 55

Case filed

Hearing

Decision

Appeal to ECJ

C-24/05 P (T-396/02)“Werther’s Bonbons”

CTM 784314

ECTA 2005 56


August Storck KG

(„Werther‘s Bonbonverpackung“)

C-25/05 P (T-402/02)

ECTA 2005 57

Case filed

Hearing

Decision

Appeal to ECJ

C-25/04 P (T-402/02)“Werther’s”CTM 784454

ECTA 2005 58


3D marks in the CFI

ECTA 2005 59

3D marks in the CFI• Decided cases

T-194/01Unilever N.V.

refused

ECTA 2005 60

T-324/01Axions S.A.

refused

ECTA 2005 61

T-110/02Axions S.A.

refused

ECTA 2005 62

T-305/02Nestle Waters France

CTM 922179

ECTA 2005 63

T-393/02“Kopfflasche”CTM 1162395

ECTA 2005 64

T-360/03“Käseschachtel”CTM 2631745

ECTA 2005 65


3D marks in the CFI

ECTA 2005 66

3D marks in the CFI• Pending cases

T-12/04Almdudler

CTM 2193753

ECTA 2005 67

T-129/04Develey

CTM 2579381

ECTA 2005 68

T-188/04Freixenet

CTM 32540

ECTA 2005 69

T-190/04Freixenet

CTM 32532

ECTA 2005 70

T-262/04Societe BIC, SACTM 1738392

ECTA 2005 71

T-263/04Societe BIC, SACTM 1738566

ECTA 2005 72

T-283/04Georgia-Pacific SARL

CTM 2101277

ECTA 2005 73

T-358/04Georg Neumann GmbH

CTM 493643

ECTA 2005 74

T-398/04Henkel KGaACTM 941971

ECTA 2005 75

T-2/05Reckitt Benckiser

CTM 1155712

ECTA 2005 76


CTM 1156595

ECTA 2005 77


CTM 2792544

ECTA 2005 78


CTM 2897388

ECTA 2005 79


CTM 2778488

ECTA 2005 80

T-15/05Waele

CTM 3 050 531

ECTA 2005 81

Trade Mark Cases

Registrability

ECTA 2005 82

Registrability

• Colour marks


Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH/DPMA

(„colour BLUE/YELLOW“)

ECTA 2005 83

(„colour BLUE/YELLOW“)

Case C-49/02

Advocate General Leger 15 January 2004

Rapporteur Cunha Rodriguez


Decision 24 June 2004

C-49/02Heidelberger

Bauchemie/DPMA

ECTA 2005 84

C-49/02Heidelberger Bauchemie

Colours or combinations of colours … claimed in theabstract, without contours, and in shades which arenamed in words by reference to a colour sample andspecified according to an internationally recognisedcolour classification system may constitute a trademark … where:

ECTA 2005 85

- it has been established that, in the context in whichthey are used, those colours or combinations ofcolours in fact represent a sign, and

- the application for registration includes a systematicarrangement associating the colours concerned in apredetermined and uniform way. …

Trade Mark Cases

Registrability

• Deceptive marks

ECTA 2005 86

• Deceptive marks


Continental Shelf 128 Ltd

(„Elizabeth Emanuel“)

ECTA 2005 87

(„Elizabeth Emanuel“)

Case C-259/04

Hearing

Advocate General

Rapporteur

Decision

Trade Mark Cases

Registrability

• Conflict with state symbols

ECTA 2005 88

• Conflict with state symbols


Concept-Anlagen und Geräte GmbH/OHIM („ECA“)

Case T-127/02

ECTA 2005 89

Case T-127/02

Hearing

Decision 21 April 2004

CTM 1106402

Refused

T-127/02Concept-Anlagen und Geräte

CTM 1106442

ECTA 2005 90

Trade Mark Cases

Registrability

• Conflict with appellations

ECTA 2005 91

• Conflict with appellations of origin and geographical indications


Consorcio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola/Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG

ECTA 2005 92

Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG („GORGONZOLA/CAMBOZOLA“)

Case C-87/97

Advocate General Jacobs 17 December 1998

Decision 4 March 1999

Trade Mark Cases Before Court of First Instance

Consorcio per la tutela del formaggio Grana Padano/Biraghi

(„GRANA PADANO“/“GRANA BIRAGHI“)

ECTA 2005 93

(„GRANA PADANO“/“GRANA BIRAGHI“)

Case T-291/03


Budejovicky Budvar N.P./Anheuser-Busch Inc. („BUDWEISER“/“BUDWEISER“, „BUD“)

ECTA 2005 94

(„BUDWEISER“/“BUDWEISER“, „BUD“)

Cases T-53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64/04)

Cases filed

Hearing

Decision

Trade Mark Cases

Loss of trade mark rights -

generic indication

ECTA 2005 95

generic indication


Procordia/Björnekulla(„Bostongurka“)

Case C-371/02

Hearing 10 September 2003

ECTA 2005 96

Hearing 10 September 2003

Advocate General Léger 13 November 2003

Rapporteur Gulmann

Decision 29 April 2004

Procordia/BjörnekullaC-371/02

Article 12(2)(a) of the First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks should be interpreted as meaning that in cases where intermediaries participate in the distribution to the

ECTA 2005 97

where intermediaries participate in the distribution to the consumer or the end user of a product which is the subject of a registered trade mark, the relevant circles whose views fall to be taken into account in determining whether that trade mark has become the common name in the trade for the product in question comprise all consumers and end users and, depending on the features of the market concerned, all those in the trade who deal with that product commercially. Emphasis added

Trade Mark Cases

Scope of protection

ECTA 2005 98

Scope of protection

(Article 4 and 5 TMD, Article 8 and 9 CTMR)

Trade Mark Cases

Scope of protection

• Likelihood of confusion

• comparison of signs and

ECTA 2005 99

• comparison of signs and marks

• comparison of goods and services

• global evaluation


Matratzen Markt Concord/OHIM („Matratzen“/„Matratzen Markt Concord“ fig)

Appeal against CFI decision of 23 October

ECTA 2005 100

Appeal against CFI decision of 23 October 2002

Case C-3/03 P (T-6/01)

Hearing: no hearing

Advocate General: no opinion

Rapporteur Macken

Order 20 April 2004

Matratzen Markt Concord/OHIM

C-3/03 P

MATRATZEN

ECTA 2005 101


Vedial S.A./OHIM („HUBERT“/„SAINT HUBERT 41“)Appeal against CFI decision of 12 December

ECTA 2005 102

Appeal against CFI decision of 12 December 2002 Case C-106/03 P (T-110/01)Hearing : no hearingAdvocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer 15 July 2004Rapporteur MackenDecision 12 October 2004 (appeal dismissed)

Vedial/OHIMC-104/03 P

SAINT HUBERT 41

ECTA 2005 103


Picasso et al./OHIM – DaimlerChrysler AG („PICASSO“/„PICARO“)

Appeal against CFI decision of 20 June 2004

ECTA 2005 104

Appeal against CFI decision of 20 June 2004

Case C-361/04 P (T-185/02)

Hearing

Advocate General

Rapporteur

Decision


Mülhens GmbH/OHIM – Zirh International („SIR fig“/„ZIRH“)

Appeal against CFI decision of 3 March 2004

ECTA 2005 105


Case C-206/04 P (T-355/02)

Hearing

Advocate General

Rapporteur

Decision

Mülhens/OHIMC-206/04 P

ECTA 2005 106

ZIRH


El Corte Ingles/OHIM

(„Emidio Tucci“ fig/“Emilio Pucci“ fig)


ECTA 2005 107


Case C-104/05 P (T-8/03)

Hearing

Advocate General

Rapporteur

Decision

El Corte Ingles/OHIMC-104/05 P

ECTA 2005 108

Trade Mark Cases

Scope of protection

ECTA 2005 109

Scope of protection

• Infringing use - Transit


Class International v. Unilever

(„AQUAFRESH“)

Case C-405/03

ECTA 2005 110

Case C-405/03

Hearing

Advocate General Jacobs 26 May 2005

Rapporteur

Decision


A v. B

(„DIESEL“) (Reference by German Federal Court of Justice of 2 June 2005)

ECTA 2005 111

Court of Justice of 2 June 2005)

Case C-/05

Hearing

Advocate General

Rapporteur

Decision

Trade Mark Cases

Scope of protection

ECTA 2005 112

Scope of protection

• Infringing use - Toys


Adam Opel AG („OPEL Blitz“)

Case C-48/05

Hearing

ECTA 2005 113

Hearing

Advocate General

Rapporteur

Decision

Trade Mark Cases

Limits of protection

ECTA 2005 114


• Fair use - Article 12 CTMR


Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Budejovicky Budvar n.p. (BUDWEISER)

Case C-245/02

ECTA 2005 115

Case C-245/02

Hearing 27 April 2004

Advocate General Tizzano 29 June 2004

Rapporteur Timmermans (Grand Chamber)

Decision 16 November 2004

Anheuser-BuschC-245/02

1. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement), as set out in Annex 1 C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, approved on behalf of the European Community, as regards

ECTA 2005 116

approved on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994, applies in the event of a conflict between a trade mark and a sign alleged to infringe that trade mark where that conflict arose before the date of application of the TRIPs Agreement but continued beyond that date.


2. A trade name may constitute a sign within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 16(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement). That provision is intended to confer on the proprietor of a trade mark the exclusive right to prevent a third

ECTA 2005 117

proprietor of a trade mark the exclusive right to prevent a third party from using such a sign if the use in question prejudices or is liable to prejudice the functions of the trade mark, in particular its essential function of guaranteeing to consumers the origin of the goods.

The exceptions provided for in Article 17 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement) are intended, inter alia, to enable a third party to use a sign which is identical or similar to a trade mark to indicate his trade name, provided that such use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.


3. A trade name which is not registered or established by use in the Member State in which the trade mark is registered and in which protection against the trade name in question is sought may be regarded as an existing prior right within the meaning of

ECTA 2005 118

may be regarded as an existing prior right within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 16(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement) if the proprietor of the trade name has a right falling within the substantive and temporal scope of that agreement which arose prior to the trade mark with which it is alleged to conflict and which entitles him to use a sign identical or similar to that trade mark.


Gillette Co./LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy

Case C-228/03

ECTA 2005 119

Hearing 21 October 2004

Advocate General Tizzano 9 December 2004

Rapporteur Caoimh

Decision 17 March 2005

GilletteC-228/03

1. The lawfulness or otherwise of the use of the trade mark under Article 6(1)(c) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks depends on whether that use is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product.

ECTA 2005 120

to indicate the intended purpose of a product.

Use of the trade mark by a third party who is not its owner is necessary in order to indicate the intended purpose of a product marketed by that third party where such use in practice constitutes the only means of providing the public with comprehensible and complete information on that intended purpose in order to preserve the undistorted system of competition in the market for that product.

GilletteC-228/03

2. The condition of ‘honest use’ within the meaning of Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 89/104, constitutes in substance the expression of a duty to act fairly in relation to the legitimate interests of the trade mark owner.

The use of the trade mark will not be in accordance with honest

ECTA 2005 121

The use of the trade mark will not be in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters if, for example:

– it is done in such a manner as to give the impression that there is a commercial connection between the third party and the trade mark owner;

– it affects the value of the trade mark by taking unfair advantage of its distinctive character or repute;

– it entails the discrediting or denigration of that mark;

– or where the third party presents its product as an imitation or replica of the product bearing the trade mark of which it is not the owner.

GilletteC-228/03

The fact that a third party uses a trade mark of which it is not the owner in order to indicate the intended purpose of the product which it markets does not necessarily mean that it is presenting it as being of the same quality as, or having equivalent properties to, those of the product bearing the trade mark. Whether there

ECTA 2005 122

to, those of the product bearing the trade mark. Whether there has been such presentation depends on the facts of the case, and it is for the referring court to determine whether it has taken place by reference to the circumstances.

Whether the product marketed by the third party has been presented as being of the same quality as, or having equivalent properties to, the product whose trade mark is being used is a factor which the referring court must take into consideration when it verifies that that use is made in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.

GilletteC-228/03

3. Where a third party that uses a trade mark of which it is not the owner markets not only a spare part or an accessory but also the product itself with which the spare part or accessory is intended to be used, such use falls within the scope of Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 89/104 in so far as it is necessary to indicate

ECTA 2005 123

6(1)(c) of Directive 89/104 in so far as it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of the product marketed by the latter and is made in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters.

Trade Mark Cases


ECTA 2005 124


• Exhaustion


Peak Holding AB/Axolin Elinor AB („Peak Performance“)

Cases C-16/03

ECTA 2005 125

Cases C-16/03

Hearing 24 March 2004

Advocate General Stix-Hackl 27 May 2004

Rapporteur Gulmann (Grand Chamber)

Decision 30 November 2004

Peak HoldingC-16/03

1. Article 7(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that goods bearing a trade mark cannot be

ECTA 2005 126

as meaning that goods bearing a trade mark cannot be regarded as having been put on the market in the European Economic Area where the proprietor of the trade mark has imported them into the European Economic Area with a view to selling them there or where he has offered them for sale to consumers in the European Economic Area, in his own shops or those of an associated company, without actually selling them.

Peak HoldingC-16/03

2. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the stipulation, in a contract of sale concluded between the proprietor of the trade mark and an operator established in the European Economic Area, of a prohibition on reselling in the European Economic Area does not mean that there is no

ECTA 2005 127

European Economic Area does not mean that there is no putting on the market in the European Economic Area within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and thus does not preclude the exhaustion of the proprietor’s exclusive rights in the event of resale in the European Economic Area in breach of the prohibition.

Trade Mark Cases


ECTA 2005 128


• Requirement of use

Trade Mark Cases

Procedural issues

Procedure before the Office

ECTA 2005 129

Procedure before the Office

Procedure before the Boards

Procedure before the CFI

Procedure before the ECJ

Trade Mark Cases Before the Court of Justice

Praktiker GmbH/DPMA („PRAKTIKER“)

Case 418/02

ECTA 2005 130

Case 418/02

Hearing

Advocate General Leger 13 January 2005

Decision

Registration of service marks for „retail services“


OHIM v. Kaul GmbH

(„CAPOL“/“ARCOL“)

Case C-29/05 P (T-64/02)

ECTA 2005 131

Case C-29/05 P (T-64/02)

Hearing

Decision

New evidence before the Boards


Henkel KGaA/OHIM - LHS (UK) Ltd.

(„CARCLIN“/“KLEENCARE“)

Case T-308/01 - R 738/00-3

ECTA 2005 132

Case T-308/01 - R 738/00-3

Hearing


Role of Boards

New evidence before the Boards

Scope of competence


GE Betz Inc. v. OHIM – Bluenet Ltd

(„BIOMET“ fig/„BIOMATE“)

Case T-107/02

ECTA 2005 133

Case T-107/02

Hearing

Decision 30 June 2004

Role of OHIM as party defendant


Reemark v. OHIM – Bluenet Ltd

(„WEST“/„WESTLIFE“)

Case T-22/04

ECTA 2005 134

Case T-22/04

Hearing

Decision 4 May 2005

Role of OHIM as party defendant

Information

oami.eu.int

ALICANTE NEWS

ECTA 2005 135

ALICANTE NEWS

[email protected]

ECTA 2005 136

Date post:	11-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuongdang
View:	229 times
Download:	3 times

ECTA 2005 1 - Home - ECTA - European Communities Trade ... · PDF fileECTA 2005 12 Member...

Documents