Symposium 2018 Tagungsband Conference Volume - Die Unionsmarke im nationalen Recht - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen The EU trade mark in national law: ...
←
→
Transkription von Seiteninhalten
Wenn Ihr Browser die Seite nicht korrekt rendert, bitte, lesen Sie den Inhalt der Seite unten
Symposium Tagungsband
2018 Conference Volume
Die Unionsmarke im nationalen Recht –
Risiken und Nebenwirkungen
The EU trade mark in national law:
risks and side effectsVorwort
Sehr geehrte Leserinnen und Leser,
ich freue mich, Ihnen den druckfrischen Tagungsband vom Bundespatentgericht hin. Sie stellten den interes-
anlässlich unseres 6. internationalen Symposiums, das sierten Gästen ihre Erfahrungen mit der Unionsmarke
am 19. April 2018 in München stattfand, vorstellen zu in den jeweiligen Verfahren vor. Interessante Einblicke
können. aus der Perspektive des europäischen Markenrechts
gab Dimitris Botis vom EUIPO. Die Perspektiven der
In diesem Jahr widmete sich die Veranstaltung dem
Markeninhaber brachten Karla Hughes von der Kanz-
Thema „Die Unionsmarke im nationalen Recht – Risi-
lei Lovells in Alicante und Myrtha Hurtado Rivas von
ken und Nebenwirkungen“.
der Firma Novartis in die Diskussion ein, die zu einem
Dass Fragen zu Wirkungen und Risiken der Unions- anregenden Meinungsaustausch mit dem Publikum
marke im nationalen Recht äußerst praxisrelevant führten.
sind, belegten die 250 Teilnehmer, die als Richter, An-
Risiken und Nebenwirkungen gibt es auch bei der
wälte, in Wirtschaft oder in Wissenschaft, aber auch in
Frage des Schutzes von Geschäfts- und Betriebsge-
den Ämtern mit dem Markenrecht befasst sind.
heimnissen in Markenverfahren. Eine Frage von zu-
Trotz der Vereinheitlichung markenrechtlicher Vor- nehmender praktischer Bedeutung, die im Kontext der
schriften auf europäischer- und nationaler Ebene neuen EU-Richtlinie hoch aktuell ist. Ein Sondervor-
durch Gesetzgebung und Konvergenzprogramme des trag widmete sich dieser Thematik. Prof. Dr. Mary-Rose
EUIPO sowie umfangreicher Rechtsprechung euro McGuire stellte bei diesem verfahrensübergreifenden
päischer Gerichte gibt es nach wie vor ungeklärte Thema die wichtigsten Indikationsgebiete vor und
Sachverhalte. Dies gilt zum Beispiel für die Frage des zeigte richtungsweisende Therapieansätze auf; die Ver
Verständnisses fremdsprachiger Marken in nationa- öffentlichung ist bereits an anderer Stelle erfolgt.
len Verfahren oder der rechtserhaltenden Benutzung
Ich danke allen Referentinnen und Referenten noch
einer Unionsmarke im nationalen Recht.
einmal herzlich für ihre tatkräftige Unterstützung und
Insoweit sind also Risiken und Nebenwirkungen so- wünsche Ihnen nunmehr eine anregende Lektüre.
wohl in markenrechtlichen Anmelde-, Widerspruchs-
und Verletzungsverfahren als auch in der unterneh-
merischen Praxis stets im Auge zu behalten.
Auf der Suche nach einem Rezept – möglichst ohne Beate Schmidt
Risiken und Nebenwirkungen – beleuchteten nam- Präsidentin des Bundespatentgerichts
hafte Referenten aus dem In- und Ausland dieses Ver-
hältnis. Auf die komplexen Fragen in Markenverfahren
wiesen Ignacio Ulloa Rubio als Vertreter des Gerichts
erster Instanz sowie Ángel Galgo Peco vom Berufungs-
gericht aus Madrid, Dr. Mathias Kochendörfer vom
Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt und Prof. Dr. Franz HackerPreface
Dear readers,
I am delighted to present you the recently published plex issues that trade mark proceedings involve. They
conference transcript of our 6th international symposi- reported on their experiences with the Union trade
um, which took place in Munich on 19 April 2018. mark within the relevant proceedings. Dimitris Botis
from EUIPO offered an interesting insight into the
This year the conference was devoted to the theme
perspective of European trade mark law. Karla Hughes
of the Union trade mark in national law – risks and
from the law firm Lovells in Alicante and Myrha Hur-
side-effects.
tado Rivas from Novartis introduced the perspectives
The fact that questions concerning the effects and of trade mark proprietors into the debate, leading to a
risks of the Union trade mark in national law are ex- lively exchange of views with the audience.
tremely relevant in practice was proven by the 250
The protection of trade and business secrets during
participants who, in their capacity as judges, lawyers
trade mark proceedings also involves risks and side-ef-
as well as members of industry, academia and official
fects. It is an issue of increasing practical importance,
institutions, devote their attention to trade mark law.
which is highly topical within the context of the new
Despite the harmonization of trade mark provisions EU Directive. A separate lecture was devoted to this is-
at the European and national level through legislation sue. Professor Dr. Mary-Rose McGuire addressed these
and convergence programs of EUIPO as well as the questions and presented the most important indica-
extensive jurisprudence of European courts, there are tions, pointing to ground-breaking therapeutic ap-
still matters that remain unresolved. This applies, for proaches; her contribution has already been published
example, to the question of the understanding of for- elsewhere.
eign-language marks in national proceedings and to
I would like to express my warmest thanks to all speak-
use of a Union mark in national law in a manner en-
ers for their active support and now hope you enjoy
suring that its rights are maintained.
reading this transcript.
In this respect, therefore, the risks and side-effects
have to be kept in mind in trade mark registration, op-
position and infringement proceedings as well as in
business dealings.
Beate Schmidt
Renowned speakers from at home and abroad cast President of the Federal Patent Court
light on this relationship during the search for a solu-
tion – if possible without risks and side-effects. Ignacio
Ulloa Rubio as a representative of the European Gen-
eral Court, Ángel Galgo Peco from the Court of Appeal
in Madrid, Dr. Mathias Kochendörfer from the Higher
Regional Court Frankfurt and Prof. Dr. Franz Hacker
from the Federal Patent Court, pointed out the com-Inhalt · Contents
Begrüßung 4 VORTRÄGE
Welcoming Address 6 LECTURES
Beate Schmidt
The New EU Trademark System
Präsidentin des Bundespatentgerichts,
Threats, Risks and Challenges 10
Deutschland
Dimitris Botis
President of the Federal Patent Court,
Germany Deputy Director for Legal Affairs in the
International Cooperation and Legal Affairs
Department (ICLAD), EUIPO, Spain
Welcoming Address 8
Dr. Théophile Margellos
The unitary character of EUTM
Präsident der Beschwerdekammern, Amt der Europäi-
and the influence of national rights 22
schen Union für geistiges Eigentum (EUIPO), Spanien
Ignacio Ulloa Rubio
President of the Boards of Appeal,
EUIPO, Spain Judge at the General Court of the European Union,
Luxembourg
Risks and side effects … of the EU trade mark
in companies 34
Myrtha Hurtado Rivas
Global Head of Trademarks & Domain Names,
Novartis International AG, Switzerland
Risks and side effects of the EUTM in companies 40
Karla Hughes
Senior Associate, Hogan Lovells International LLP,
Spain
2Unionsweite Verbote – ABENDEMPFANG
Möglichkeiten und Grenzen 44
EVENING RECEPTION
Union-Wide Bans – Possibilities and Bounds 52
Dr. Mathias Kochendörfer Die Grundgesetze der menschlichen Dummheit
Richter am Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, und die Prüfung ihrer Gültigkeit für EU-Marken 73
Deutschland Basic Laws on Human Stupidity and Verification
Judge at the Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, of their Validity for EU Trade Marks 79
Germany Dr. Volker Bugdahl
Inhaber Markenagentur at10tion, Hanau,
Deutschland
Die Unionsmarke: Supranationales Schutzrecht
mit nationalem Zerfallsrisiko? 60 Owner of the trade mark agency at10tion,
Hanau, Germany
The EU Trade Mark: Supra-national Protection
with National Risk of Disintegration? 64
Prof. Dr. Franz Hacker Impressum 85
Vorsitzender Richter am am Bundespatentgericht, Imprint 85
Deutschland
Presiding Judge at the Federal Patent Court, Germany
Some issues that arise in the spanish legal practice
related to the EU Trademark 68
Ángel Galgo Peco
President of section No. 28, specialized in commercial
matters – Court of Appeal of Madrid, Spain
Sonderthema: Der Schutz von Geschäfts- und
Betriebsgeheimnissen im Gerichtsverfahren
Special topic: The Protection of trade and business
secrets in litigation 71
Prof. Dr. Mary-Rose McGuire
Lehrstuhlinhaberin für Bürgerliches Recht,
Recht des Geistigen Eigentums und
Zivilprozessrecht, Universität Osnabrück,
Deutschland
Chair for Private Law, Intellectual Property Law,
German & European Civil Procedure, University of
Osnabrück, Germany
3Symposium 2018 Begrüßung
Herzlich willkommen zum 6. internationalen Symposium
des Bundespatentgerichts mit dem Thema: Die Unionsmarke im
nationalen Recht – Risiken und Nebenwirkungen
Lieber Théophile Margellos, lieber Herr Dröge, Kernthema des heutigen Tages ist „Die Unionsmarke
liebe Referentinnen und Referenten, verehrte Gäste, im nationalen Recht – Risiken und Nebenwirkungen“;
wir wollen das Verhältnis vom europäischen und na-
da wir uns ja heute zu einem Symposium treffen, bei
tionalen Markenrecht beleuchten und uns mit dem
dem wir die knappe zur Verfügung stehende Zeit für
Schicksal europäischer Marken vor nationalen Gerich-
Vorträge und inhaltliche Diskussionen verwenden
ten befassen.
wollen, sehen Sie mir hoffentlich nach, dass ich auf
weitere Namensnennungen verzichte – die Gefahr, Eine Studie aus dem Jahr 2005, bei der die Gebrauchs-
in der gebotenen Kürze und Eile die eine oder ande- information – auch ich muss mich erst an diesen Be-
re nennenswerte Persönlichkeit aus Versehen zu ver- griff für den Beipackzettel gewöhnen – häufig verord-
gessen, ist einfach zu groß … und ich sehe dazu lauter neter Arzneimittel untersucht und Verbraucher nach
gut bekannte Gesichter. Ich freue mich, dass Sie durch ihren Einschätzungen gefragt wurden, ergab: Ge-
Ihre Teilnahme einmal mehr Ihre Verbundenheit und brauchsinformationen von Arzneimitteln über Risiken
Unterstützung für das Bundespatentgericht unter Be- und Nebenwirkungen sind zu lang, schwer lesbar und
weis stellen. oft unverständlich. Deshalb stehen ja auch Arzt oder
Apotheker für Fragen zur Verfügung.
Herzlich willkommen zum 6. internationalen Sympo-
sium des Bundespatentgerichts. Ich kann feststellen, Auch das Verhältnis zwischen Unionsmarke und na-
dass es inzwischen schon Tradition geworden ist, und tionalem Recht im Anmelde-, Widerspruchs- und Ver-
immerhin sind wir nun auch bereits zum 3. Mal hier im letzungsverfahren kann – wie ein Arzneimittel – mit
Sophiensaal. Risiken und Nebenwirkungen behaftet, bisweilen gar
unverständlich sein. Zwar ist das Markenrecht in der
Europäischen Union – nicht zuletzt auch dank um-
fangreicher Rechtsprechung der Europäischen Gerich-
te – weitgehend harmonisiert. Bei näherem Hinsehen
und je nach Einzelfall gibt es allerdings nach wie vor
offene Fragen: es existieren immer noch Risiken und
Nebenwirkungen im Verhältnis von europäischem
und nationalem Markenrecht. Zum Glück können wir
heute erfahrene und sachkundige Referentinnen und
Referenten konsultieren, die uns mit ihren Kenntnis-
sen und praktischen Erfahrungen weiterhelfen.
Die europäischen Gerichte leisten einen wesentlichen
Beitrag zur Vereinheitlichung der Rechtsprechung im
Markenrecht. Deshalb freue ich mich sehr, dass wir
heute einen Vertreter des Gerichts erster Instanz als
Referenten unter uns haben, ich heiße Herrn Ignacio
Ulloa Rubio herzlich willkommen.
4Beate Schmidt
seit Mai 2011 Präsidentin des Bundespatentgerichts
2006 – 2011 Direktorin im Harmonisierungsamt für
den Binnenmarkt Marken und Muster
Die vom EUIPO initiierten Konvergenzprogramme mit (HABM), Alicante
den nationalen Ämtern schaffen eine wünschens-
2000 – 2006 Leiterin der Hauptabteilung 3 (Marken,
werte gemeinsame Grundlage für alle Beteiligten in
Gebrauchs- und Geschmacksmuster) des
Markenverfahren. Dimitris Botis vom EUIPO kann uns
Deutschen Patent- und Markenamts
Interessantes aus der Perspektive des europäischen
Markenrechts berichten. Karla Hughes von der Kanz- 1997 – 2000 Abteilungsleiterin 4.1 im Deutschen
lei Lovells in Alicante und Myrtha Hurtado Rivas von Patent- und Markenamt
der Firma Novartis bringen die Perspektive der Mar-
1994 – 1997 Richterin im 32. Markensenat des Bundes-
keninhaber in die Diskussion ein. Drei im Markenrecht
patentgerichts
versierte Richter – Ángel Galgo Peco vom Berufungs-
gericht aus Madrid, Dr. Mathias Kochendörfer vom 1991 – 1994 persönliche Referentin des Staatssekre-
Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt und Prof. Dr. Franz Hacker tärs im Bundesministerium der Justiz
vom Bundespatentgericht – teilen ihre Erfahrungen
1986 – 1990 Referentin im Referat III B 3 (Urheber-
aus den nationalen Verfahren mit uns.
recht) im Bundesministerium der Justiz,
Es geht heute nicht nur um das Schicksal eingetragener nach Übernahme in den Bundesdienst
Marken, auch der Schutz von Geschäfts- und Betriebs- 1989 im Personalreferat
geheimnissen gewinnt im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz
1982 – 1986 Richterin am Amtsgericht Aschaffenburg
zunehmend an Bedeutung. Ich freue mich daher sehr,
dass Frau Prof. Dr. Mary-Rose McGuire uns zum Ab-
schluss einen Überblick über den aktuellen Stand der
Diskussion geben wird.
Alle Vortragenden werden, auf der Suche nach einem
Rezept, aus ihrer jeweiligen Perspektive, Risiken auf-
• und natürlich den vielen Helferinnen und Helfern,
zeigen und Lösungen anbieten. Ich bin schon sehr ge-
die in die Organisation unseres Symposiums einge-
spannt auf ihre Ausführungen.
bunden sind und die auch heute für einen reibungs-
Bevor es nun gleich losgeht, möchte ich allen, die an losen Ablauf sorgen – und Ihnen später bei Bedarf
diesem Symposium mitwirken und die Durchführung auch Ihre Teilnahme bescheinigen werden.
überhaupt erst möglich machen, meinen herzlichen
Ich wünsche uns allen ein interessantes und kurz-
Dank aussprechen:
weiliges Symposium und bitte nun den Präsidenten
• dem Markenverband, der als Mitveranstalter unsere der Beschwerdekammern des EUIPO, Herrn Théophile
Arbeit durch kulinarische Verpflegung in der Kaffee- Margellos, um sein Grußwort.
pause unterstützt,
• den Referentinnen und Referenten, die uns interes-
sante Vorträge offerieren,
• den Teilnehmern, die wertvolle Diskussionsbeiträge
beisteuern werden
5Symposium 2018 Welcoming Address
Welcome to the 6th International Symposium of the Federal Patent
Court on the topic: The EU trade mark in national law:
risks and side effects
Dear Théophile Margellos, dear Mr. Dröge, The relationship between the EU trade mark and
Dear speakers, dear guests, national law during registration, opposition and in-
fringement proceedings can – like a medicament –
since we are convening today for a symposium at
entail risks and side-effects, and at times can even
which we want to use the scarce available time for
be incomprehensible. It is true that trade mark law
speeches and topical discussions, kindly forgive me if
within the European Union has been harmonized for
I refrain from mentioning other names – the risk of
the most part – not least thanks to the extensive ju-
inadvertently forgetting the one or other important
risprudence of the European courts. However, when
person under time pressure is simply too large … and
we take a closer look and depending on the individual
I can see many well-known faces... I am pleased to
case at hand, there are still unresolved issues: there
see that you are demonstrating your connection with
are still risks and side-effects in the relationship be-
and support for the Federal Patent Court by partici-
tween European and national trade mark law. Luckily
pating in our symposium.
we are able to consult experienced and knowledgea-
Welcome to the 6th International Symposium of the ble speakers today, who will assist us based on their
Federal Patent Court. It has clearly become a tradition expertise and practical experience.
– after all, we are in the Sophiensaal for the 3rd time.
European courts contribute significantly to the har-
The core theme today is “The EU trade mark in na- monization of jurisprudence in trade mark cases. I
tional law – risks and side-effects”. We intend to am therefore very glad that a representative of the
examine the relationship between European and court of first instance is among us as a speaker today,
national trade mark law and to discuss the fate of Eu- and would like to extend a warm welcome Ignacio
ropean trade marks before national courts. Ulloa Rubio.
A study dating from the year 2005 examined the The convergence programs with national offices ini-
patient information leaflet – I also have to get used tiated by EUIPO create a desirable common basis for
to this term for the package insert – for frequently all those participating in trade mark proceedings.
prescribed medicaments and asked consumers about Dimitris Botis from EUIPO will present an interest-
their views, with the following outcome: Patient in- ing report from the perspective of European trade
formation leaflets for medicaments explaining the mark law. Karla Hughes from the law firm Lovells in
risks and side-effects are too long, difficult to read Alicante and Myrha Hurtado Rivas from the company
and often incomprehensible. That is why your GP or Novartis will introduce the perspective of trade mark
chemist is available to answer questions. proprietors into the debate. Three experienced trade
mark judges – Ángel Galgo Peco from the Court of
Appeal in Madrid, Dr. Mathias Kochendörfer from the
Higher Regional Court Frankfurt and Prof. Dr. Franz
Hacker from the Federal Patent Court – will report on
their experience gained in national proceedings.
6Beate Schmidt
President of the Federal Patent Court since May 2011
2006 – 2011 Director of the Office of Harmonization
in the Internal Market (OHIM), Alicante
Today’s debate does not just concern the fate of
2000 – 2006 Head of Main Department 3 (Trade
registered trade marks, the protection of trade and
Marks, Utility Models and Designs) at the
business secrets is also of increasing importance in
German Patent and Trade Mark Office
intellectual property law. I therefore extend a cordial
welcome to Prof. Dr. Mary-Rose McGuire, who will 1997 – 2000 Head of department 4.1 at the German
present an overview of the current status of the de- Patent and Trade Mark Office
bate in order to close today’s proceedings.
1994 – 1997 Judge in the 32nd Trade Mark Division of
While searching for a recipe, all speakers will point the Federal Patent Court
out risks and propose solutions based on their indi-
1991 – 1994 Personal advisor to the State Secretary at
vidual perspectives. I am greatly looking forward to
the Federal Ministry of Justice
their presentations.
1986 – 1990 Desk officer (Department III B3 –
Before we kick off the proceedings, I would like to ex-
Copyright Law) in the Federal Ministry of
press my gratitude to all those who have contributed
Justice, and in the personnel department
to this symposium and who made it happen in the
having become a civil servant in 1989
first place:
1982 – 1986 Judge at the Local Court, Aschaffenburg
• the Trade Mark Association which as the co-organ-
izer supports our work through culinary treats dur-
ing the coffee break,
• the speakers for preparing and delivering their in-
teresting presentations,
• the participants for their valuable contributions to
the debate,
• and of course the numerous helpers involved in or-
ganizing our symposium, who ensure that things
run smoothly today and who will confirm your par-
ticipation later on, if necessary.
I hope we all have an interesting and entertaining
symposium and would like to ask Théophile Margellos,
President of the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO, to present
his welcome address.
7Symposium 2018 Welcoming Address Dr. Théophile Margellos
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
Distinguished Colleagues,
First of all, I would like to thank the organisers of this It is for that very reason that symposiums such as this
very interesting symposium for the invitation and the one play a crucial and pivotal role in ensuring the ex-
warm welcome. Let me also say at the outset how very change of knowledge and serve as a source of inspira-
pleased I am to be here. tion for the further evolution and advancement of the
European Trade mark system.
The Boards of Appeal recently had its 20th anniversa-
ry which marked a substantial milestone in the Euro- Furthermore, considering the sheer number of EUTM
pean Trademark system. Indeed, much has happened and national registrations currently in force through-
over the course of the last 20 years both in terms of out the European Union, it is crucial for the effective
its evolution and development. However, when viewed and expedient functioning of those systems that prac-
against the backdrop of many of the national systems titioners and decision takers alike constantly strive to
which have been in place for far longer, the EUTM sys- achieve a harmonious interplay between the nation-
tem, as a whole, is still in its early stage of develop- al- and EU systems, a goal which we all surely have a
ment. genuine interest in.
Whereas some national systems have celebrated their I would like to stress that the heart of our system is
100th birthday long ago, the EUTM system is still in its and has always been the concept of cooperation, not
early twenties, and as such, it is natural that a series of competition.
unresolved issues arise and that a variety of risks and
This means that national systems – and regional sys-
unintended side-effects emerge.
tems in the case of the Benelux IP Office – should in-
teract and cooperate within the European system, and
vice versa.
Together, in other words, we are stronger.
Dear friends, cooperation is now part of the core busi-
ness of EUIPO. Article 152 of the European Union trade
mark Regulation embeds cooperation to promote con-
vergence of practices and tools.
The Convergence Programmes represent a moment
for us in which national level and European level IP ex-
perts work together, to make our practice more trans-
parent and predictable.
This is a clear case of symbiotic and mutually benefi-
cial joint work between the two levels of our system,
for the good of all our users.
Again – cooperation, not competition.
8Dr. Théophile Margellos
President of the Boards of Appeal, EUIPO, Alicante
2005–2013 Chairperson of the First (Trade marks)
and Third (Designs) Boards of Appeal,
This is the approach which may neutralize side effects
EUIPO, Alicante
and reduce risks.
2005–2013 Alternate Chairperson of the EASA Board
In that regard it may be important to note that whilst
of Appeal
many basic trade mark principles which are well-
known and subject to wide-spread use across various 2001–2011 Qualified Member of the Boards of
national systems are also reflected in the European Appeal, CPVO, Angers
Union trade mark system, their content may be differ-
1997 – 2005 Member of the Boards of Appeal, EUIPO,
ent when applied there.
Alicante
In particular, these principles may be interpreted in a
1994–1997 Référendaire, EU Court of Justice,
very different factual and legal setting.
Luxembourg
One of the central debates we have very often centres
1990–1994 Member of the Legal Service of the
around the application of the principle of unitary char-
EU Commission, Brussels
acter and its application in a market where consumers
have very diverse linguistic proficiencies. This principle 1988–1998 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law,
may in itself lead to differing results of the same con- Jules Verne de Picardie University, Amiens
flict, depending on whether an infringement proceed-
1986–1994 Member of the Permanent Advisory
ing is viewed through the lens of the European system
Committee (SACEPO), EPO, Munich
or strictly in a national one.
1983–1993 Attorney at the Athens Bar, Athens and
Indeed, whether at the National- or European level,
European Patent Attorney
we are all often faced with difficult dilemmas and are
charged with the resolution of complex problems.
In order to solve them, we need to work at all levels to-
gether. So the European trademark system will contin-
ue to be refined and to improve. And I am sure that the
symposium today will contribute to that development.
Dear colleagues, it is a real pleasure to be with you to-
day, and to share these opening remarks with you.
Please allow me to conclude by wishing you all the
best for a very successful and fruitful day ahead.
Thank you very much.
9Symposium 2018 Dimitris Botis
The New EU Trademark System
Threats, Risks and Challenges
Dimitris Botis
Good morning ladies and Gentlemen, legislative instruments were re-arranged to match the
requirements of the Lisbon Treaty.
It is a great pleasure and a great honour to be here on
behalf of the EUIPO, and to celebrate, together with The New Directive (2015/2436) entered into force on
such a distinguished audience, the 2018 edition of the 12 January 2016 and the Member States have 3 years,
Trademark Symposium of the Federal Patent Court. that is, until Monday 14 January 2019, to transpose it
into their national legal orders for most matters, and 7
This year our subject is risks and we are having this
years, that is, until 2023, to put in place administrative
discussion at a moment when the legislative changes
opposition and cancellation procedures. But this is only
triggered by the Commission in 2013 are about to come
the first level of transposition, since, in many Member
to a conclusion. As we all know, the trademark system
States, further implementing arrangements may be
in Europe is a two-tier system, where EU and national
necessary before the changes take full effect.
marks do not merely co-exist in parallel, but are func-
tionally connected, interact and complement each oth- At EU level, the transition is by now practically complete.
er in various ways. The amending Regulation (2015/2424) entered into force
on 23 March 2016, and was codified in June 2017 by Reg-
The new legislation aspired to modernise and improve
ulation 2017/1001 to form the new EUTMR. On the 1st
this system, without however changing its main char-
of October 2017, two further Regulations issued by the
acteristics. Now that this long process is almost over,
Commission under Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaties
we have enough elements to test how successful this
entered into force: Delegated Regulation 2017/1430 (EU-
effort has been.
MTDR) and Implementing Regulation 2017/1431 (EUMTIR).
I therefore chose as my subject today risks and chal-
These acts will soon be replaced by a new version aimed
lenges that, on one way or another, threaten the coher-
at aligning the cross references to the EUTMR with its
ence of the system by obstructing the smooth interac-
new numbering, but their substance will not change.
tion between EU and national marks.
The New EU Trade Mark Legislation
The diagram on the screen shows the main milestones MAIN THEMES OF THE REFORM
of the reform, and how the provisions in the various o Modernisation and clarification of existing rules;
o Closer approximation of substantive provisions;
o Harmonisation of procedures, taking the EU system as benchmark;
o Enhanced cooperation between EUIPO and NIPOs to promote harmonised
ADOPTION OF THE NEW TRADE MARK LEGISLATION practices and interconnected tools;
12 JAN 2016
o Alignment with Lisbon Treaty and the ‘Common Approach’ on agencies;
23 MAR 2016 14 JUN 2017
TM DIRECTIVE
2015/2436
CTMR
EUTMR
2015/2424
EUTMR Codified
2017/1001
Enhanced Usability, Legal Certainty & Predictability
CTMFR 1 OCT 2017
+3Y Transposition EUTMIR
The main objective of the reform was to strengthen
CTMIR 2017/1431
+7Y Opposition RPBoA
EUTMDR
2017/1430 further the links between the EU and national systems
with a view to creating a more solid and harmonised
legal framework.
10Dimitris Botis
Deputy Director for Legal Affairs in the International
Cooperation and Legal Affairs Department (ICLAD) of
the EUIPO
To achieve this, the Legislator undertook a closer ap- 2013–2018 Deputy Director for Legal Affairs in the
proximation of substantive laws, by establishing what International Cooperation and Legal
the Commission likes to call a ‘mirroring effect’ between Affairs Department (ICLAD) of the EUIPO
the Regulation and the Directive, and by making the
2010 – 2012 Head of the Litigation Service of EUIPO
quasi totality of provisions in the latter mandatory.
2006 – 2010 Litigating agend before the CJEU, Legal
At the same time, the Legislator introduced a more har-
Coordinator in the Cancellation and
monised procedural framework in the Member States,
Litigation Department of OHIM
taking the EUIPO system as a benchmark, so as to create
a level play-field across the EU for businesses. 2003–2006 Head of Group 4 of the Trade Marks
Department of OHIM
Finally, the Legislator created a legal framework for the
cooperation between the EUIPO and National IP Offices 1997–2003 OHIM – Opposition Division;
to promote convergence of practices and tools, whereby Head of Unit from 2001
the Office is entrusted with the coordination of projects
1992–1997 Legal Practitioner – Athens Bar
of common interest and with the financing, up to a
Association
maximum of 15% of its yearly revenue, of those projects.
So the vision of the Legislator was one of a fully coher-
ent and streamlined legal system, complemented by an
administrative framework capable of undertaking fur-
ther harmonising action where appropriate.
All this sounds too good to be true. Our task today is to
see how true it really is. the protection of geographical indications and similar
terms, (c) in consolidating the position of marks with
reputation in the Member States, (d) in introducing
Systemic Risks and Challenges
clearer rules with regard to the specification of goods
and services, and (e) in further approximating the provi-
sions on collective and certification marks.
SYSTEMIC RISKS AND CHALLENGES However, this effort is undermined by a number of
1. No implementation framework in the EUTMR / TM Directive regarding risks stemming from the fact that the harmonisation
the representation requirements for new TM types;
effect of the Directive finally was not as complete as an-
2. No rules in the Directive regarding old registrations with class headings;
nounced. I will focus today on five threats to the coher-
3. Unstable framework with regard to national (and Lisbon) PGIs / PDOs;
ence of the system arising in these areas, namely:
4. Inconsistent approach regarding Certification Marks;
5. Absence of transitional provisions; 1. The absence of a detailed implementation framework
in the Regulation and the Directive regarding the
Five threats to the coherence of the system
representation of the new types of trademarks that
came into being with the abolishment of graphical
representation;
In the area of substantive law, the main harmonising
efforts consisted (a) in the abolishment of the graph- 2. The absence of rules in the Directive regarding the
ical representation requirement, (b) in strengthening specifications of old registrations with class headings;
11Symposium 2018 Dimitris Botis
3. The instability of the new framework with regard to erally available technology, provided the representation
national (and Lisbon) Designations of Origin and Geo- meets the requisite standards of clarity and precision.
graphical Indications; and the
4. Inconsistent approach taken by the Directive regard-
ing Certification Marks;
Art. 3 (3) IA: SPECIFIC TM TYPES
5. The absence of Transitional Provisions. 5 existing TM types redefined
WORD Figurative
New Types of Trademarks Word Figurative Shape Colour Sound
5 newTM types added
ART. 3 EUTMIR: REPRESENTATION PRINCIPLES
Position Pattern Motion Multimedia Hologram
Representation
Article 3 also contains a non-exhaustive list of 10 of the
Type Description most popular trademark mark types, by adding to the 5
types regulated in the previous Implementing Regula-
tion, namely Word, Figurative, Shape, Colour and Sound
marks, another 5, precisely Position, Pattern, Motion,
Multimedia marks and Holograms. Moreover, it includes
Perhaps the most popular theme of the reform is the
clear definitions of these categories and lays down spe-
rules in new Article 3 EUTMIR, dealing with the effects
cific representation requirements for each of them, with
of the abolishment of the graphical representation re-
the double objective of enhancing legal certainty and
quirement. This provision laid down for the first time
reducing the objection rate in formalities and absolute
clear rules on the relationship between the type of
grounds examination.
mark indicated in the application, its representation
and, where applicable, its description.
The new rules expressly provide (a) that it is the rep-
resentation that defines the subject matter of the reg-
istration, and (b) that the type of mark and its descrip-
tion must accord with the representation and cannot ‘Other’ marks
Smell?
extend its scope. Taste?
This primacy of the representation is an important step Tactile / Texture?
towards a clearer ‘What-you-see-is-what-you-get’
(WYSIWYG) system, whose objective is to render the
Samples not acceptable
EUTM register clearer, more accessible and easier to
search. In addition, Article 3 enshrines the general prin-
ciples of representation by making clear that the sign
may be represented in any appropriate form, using gen-
12Dimitris Botis Symposium 2018
The EUTMIR moreover contains an open category called To prevent this risk from materialising, the EUIPO
‘other’, which allows filing marks not covered by the cat- launched a Strategic Project called ‘Support to the
egories expressly listed, provided that their representa- Transposition of the Directive’, with a double objective:
tion meets the general standards of clarity and preci-
sion set out in the 1st paragraph of Article 3.
Common Communication on
New Trademark Types
The Gap in the Directive
NEW TYPES OF TRADE MARKS
COMMON COMMUNICATION ON NEW TYPES OF TMs
NEW TYPES OF TRADEMARS: THE GAP IN THE DIRECTIVE
o The Communication was endorsed by EUIPO’s
Management Board & published in December 2017:
o Although the Directive mirrors the EUTMR as concerns the elimination of
graphic representation, it does not contain guidance on: - Types of trade marks NIPOs plan to accept;
The acceptable types of trade marks and their definition; - Definitions and means of representation for the new
types of TMs;
Their means of representation and other filing requirements;
The value to be given to the type of mark or its description. - Acceptable electronic file formats for sound, motion,
multimedia and hologram marks.
o ‘Support to the Transposition of the Directive’ Project: Coordinated action
by the EUIPO and national IP Offices to prevent discrepancies;
The first objective was to prevent the enactment of dif-
These rules in the Implementing regulation are more
ferent legal standards across the EU, considering that,
than a mere listing of procedural requirements. It has
if different laws were passed in the different Member
become clear in recent times, the clarity in the identi-
States, the situation would be irreversible and could not
fication and representation of the sign and the desig-
be remedied through convergence initiatives, due to the
nated goods and services is crucial for defining the sub-
legal constraints involved.
ject-matter of trademark protection.
To this effect, the IP offices of the Member States and
This is what makes the absence of a detailed implemen-
the EUIPO held a series of meetings and decided volun-
tation framework in the Directive with regard to the
tarily to strive for the adoption of same or similar ar-
representation of new trademark types so challenging,
rangements as regards:
since Member States are formally not obliged to follow
the approach taken by the EUTMIR for EUTMs. • the definitions and means of representation of new
types of trademarks, and
The introduction of different representation rules in the
Member States would amount to chaos. Different defi- • the acceptable electronic file formats for such marks.
nitions of the new types of trademarks would create
This informal commitment was enshrined in a Com-
confusion about the scope of the respective rights and
mon Communication published in December last
would present the CJEU with an impossible interpreta-
year. It reflects the position taken or likely to be taken
tive challenge.
by the Member States in the areas, and its objective is
Moreover, the usability of the system would be greatly to serve as a compilation providing information about
impaired, since industry would have to respect different the understanding reached among the parties. It is also
standards with regard to formalities in different IPOs; understood that this Common Communication will be
13Symposium 2018 Dimitris Botis
regularly updated to reflect the evolving situation in the
CP11 – New types of marks: examination of formal requirements and grounds of refusal
Member States as the transposition advances. The next
OVERVIEW OF COMMON INITIATIVES ON NEW TYPES OF TMs
update is foreseen to take place in June this year.
October - EUTMIR June - EUIPO MB January - end of
enters into force approves CP 11 transposition period
New Convergence Initiative: CP11
New TM types in MS Laws
2017 2018 2019
‘Common Communication on CP 11 – Kick off: October 2018
CP11 – New types of marks: examination of formalities and grounds of refusal
new TM types’
Work Stream 1
FORMAL REQUIREMENTS + ABSOLUTE GROUNDS
NEW CONVERGENCE INITIATIVE - CP 11: PROJECT SCOPE ‘Support to the Transposition of
the Directive’ Project
Work Stream 2
RELATIVE GROUNDS
WORK STREAM 1: Formalities and Absolute Grounds:
9 The application of Sieckmann criteria to new types of marks.
9 Discrepancies between the representation, type and description of the mark.
9 Inherent distinctiveness of new types of marks.
9 Descriptiveness of new types of marks. This new Convergence Project will take the ‘code name’
9 Characteristics which result from the nature of the goods, or are necessary to CP 11 and will be presented in June this year to the Man-
obtain a technical result, or give substantial value to the goods
agement Board of the EUIPO for approval, with a view
WORK STREAM 2: Relative Grounds - Comparison of the Signs
9 Comparison between new types of marks themselves; to going live in October this year and is planned to go
9 Comparison between traditional marks and new types of marks. on until the end of 2020.
All this shows that we are still in the middle of a highly
Assuming that this effort succeeds, in preventing signif- risky environment and that it will take a lot of effort to
icant legislative discrepancies, the second prong of the create a fully harmonised framework for unconvention-
project is scheduled to kick in. al trademarks.
This consists in a new Convergence Project dealing with
the examination of new types of trademarks, with two Colours per se and Colour Combinations
separate parallel work streams, one focusing on formal
requirements and absolute grounds and another one
on relative grounds. Specifically:
COLOURS PER SE: COURT CASES
Work Stream 1 (Formalities + AG) will deal with:
• Case C-124/18 P Red Bull v EUIPO, appeal to the CJEU against
• The application of the ‘Sieckmann’ criteria to the new the Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2017, in
Joined Cases T-101/15 and T-102/15 (ECLI:EU:T:2017:852)
trademark types.
• Case C-578/17 Oy Hartwall AB - Preliminary Reference to the
• Discrepancies between the type, representation and CJEU from the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court
description of the mark. • General Court Case T-193/18 Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG v EUIPO
(Colours Grey & Orange)
• AG that are more suitable for new trademark types
namely 7 (1) (a) to (e) EUTMR.
Work Stream 2 (Relative Grounds) focuses on the Com-
Before leaving this area, we should not disregard
parison of the Signs, both:
another important challenge that has to do with the
• Between the new types of marks themselves; and, on-going debate regarding colours per se and colour
combinations. Two important cases are currently pend-
• between traditional marks and new trademark types.
ing before the Court:
14Dimitris Botis Symposium 2018
• The appeal in Case C-124/18 P RED BULL will hopefully Goods & Services
clarify what the statement of the Court in Heidelberg-
er that the colours “must be systematically arranged
in a predetermined and uniform way” really implies for
WHAT? SUBSTANTIVE
DESIGNATION ANDCHANGES
CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS & SERVICES
the representation of colour combinations.
Article 33 EUTMR:
• The preliminary reference in Case C-578/17 HARTWALL
(2) Express requirement for clarity and precision;
deals with an equally interesting issue, namely the
(4) Express basis for rejection in case of no compliance;
concept of ‘contours’ and the liberty of the applicant (5) Interpretation of broad terms based on their natural and usual meaning;
to decide on the type of the mark as he chooses. (8) Transitional 6 month period for amending the register for marks containing
Nice Headings that were filed before the Judgment in IP Translator;
In the meantime, more cases are entering in the pipe- (9) Limitations of the exclusive right with regard to amendments.
line, like the STIHL case recently filed before the General
Court (Case T-193/18 Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG v EUIPO).
In the area of goods and services, the legislator followed
the Court judgment in ‘IP TRANSLATOR’, by requiring,
both in the Regulation and the Directive, that the goods
Colour marks
The indication of recognised colour codes
and services to be identified in the application with
remains compulsory
clarity and precision.
The reproduction must show the systematic At the same time, it is clearly stated that where general
arrangement of the colours
expressions are used, (e.g. the terms in the Headings of
A description may be filed detailing the the Nice Classification), they will always have to be in-
systematic arrangement further
terpreted according to their literal meaning.
At EU level, Article 33 EUTMR further established a tran-
sitional 6 month period during which owners of marks
Although these cases are subject to the old law, they registered before June 2012 were allowed to clarify their
may affect the application of the new provisions, consid- specifications, by expressly including terms from the al-
ering that Article 3 EUTMIR requires the representation phabetical list of Nice that were not clearly covered by
of the mark to show the systematic arrangement of the the relevant class heading.
colours, even where applicants have not availed them-
In total, 24.883 declarations were received, all of which
selves of the option to file a description detailing further
have by now been examined: the overall rate of defi-
how the combination is to be applied to the goods. An
ciencies was about 60%, but many objections were
over-restrictive approach by the Court may make it prac-
finally dropped following restrictions by applicants. In
tically impossible to represent colour combinations in
total, less than 20% were refused or withdrawn, and of
the abstract i.e. without giving examples of how the col-
these cases, only 10 appeals have been filed.
ours will be applied to the goods and would render this
possibility under the new law practically inapplicable. We are certainly happy that this complicated exercise
is over and that, in general terms, it went so smoothly.
15Symposium 2018 Dimitris Botis
The Gap in the Directive The Interpretation of National
Specifications
GOODS & SERVICES: THE GAP IN THE DIRECTIVE
RISKS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF NATIONAL SPECIFICATIONS
o Art. 39 (5) of Directive 2015/2436 = Art. 33 (5) EUTMR:
‘... The use of general terms, including the general indications of the class headings o Uncertainty regarding TMs registered pre-IP TRANSLATOR in MS applying
of the Nice Classification, shall be interpreted as including all the goods and the ‘class covers all’ principle;
services clearly covered by the literal meaning of the indication ...’ Art. 39 of the Directive does not prevent MS from laying down transitional rules;
Common Communication on CP2 to be revised;
o No equivalent in Art. 39 of the Directive to Art. 33 (8) and (9) EUTMR;
o CJEU Ruling of 11 October 2017 in Case C-501/15P (CACTUS DE LA PAZ)
o Unclear if the lack of clarity can constitute a cancellation ground.
If no legislative intervention = Class Covers All?
Possible to foresee otherwise without transitional rules?
All this has succeeded in aligning the practices across
the EU in the area of classification and has ended the
As regards the value of old specifications, a temporary
dispute between the ‘class covers all’ and the ‘literal’ ap-
solution had been found through the publication, in
proaches.
May 2013, of a Common Communication informing
However, despite the fact that Article 39 (5) of the Di- how each Member State had implemented the IP
rective expressly follows the literal approach for future Translator Judgment, but its contents will have to be
applications, it does not require Member States to lay updated as new national laws enter into force. Both
down transitional provisions similar to those in Article the EUIPO and the Commission have repeatedly re-
33 (8) of the Regulation to take care of the past. minded the affected Member States of the need to
give a legislative solution that will settle the issue for
This raises questions about the exact value of speci-
good, but at this moment we don’t know what the an-
fications of pre-IPT registrations in the eight Member
swer will be.
States that used to follow the ‘Class Headings Cover All’
approach, which, taken together, amount to 1.765.000 In the meantime, we had the CJEU Judgment of 11
marks. October 2017 in Case C-501/15P (CACTUS DE LA PAZ),
which ruled that in the absence of legislative interven-
Another open question in this area has to do with the
tion old registrations with class headings have to be
possibility of invoking the lack of clarity and precision as
interpreted as covering all goods in the relevant class,
a cancellation ground, despite the fact that the relevant
due to the need to protect the legitimate expectations
provisions have not been expressly added to the exist-
of trade mark owners. The CACTUS judgment may not
ing cancellation grounds.
affect EUIPO practice, inasmuch as the EUTMR has
Interestingly enough, Judge Arnold announced his in- irrevocably dealt with old specifications, but it is par-
tention to address a preliminary reference to the CJEU ticularly welcome because it clarifies that, unless the
precisely on this question in the recent Judgment of Member States put in place transitional provisions al-
the UK High Court in Case SKY PLC and SKYKICK UK Ltd. lowing owners to clarify their intention, the protection
[2018] EWHC 155 (Ch) § 174. of old marks with class headings will cover all goods
in the class.
16Dimitris Botis Symposium 2018
However welcome this may be in terms of legal certain-
ty, it still leaves a dark spot on the system, as in some
States class headings will have one value before June GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATONS: VALIDITY OF NATIONAL GIs
2012 and another one after that date, something that
o CJEU C-56/16 P EUIPO v Instituto dos Vinhos do Porto (PORT CHARLOTTE):
will not be visible from the contents of the register.
National PGI/PDOs for Foodstuffs, Wines and Spirits not enforceable
PGI/PDOs currently protected:
Geographical Indications - Under EU Regulations
- Under EU bilateral agreements
PDOs/PGIs IN THE EUTMR AND THE DIRECTIVE - Under national legislation X
- Under non-EU international agreements X
o Art. 7 (1) (j) EUTMR and 4 (1) (i) of Directive 2015/2436 :
‘... The following shall not be registered [...] trade marks which are excluded from
registration, pursuant to Union legislation or national law or to international agreements
to which the Union or the Member State concerned is party, providing for protection of
designations of origin and geographical indications [...]’
eas where no uniform EU protection is in place, which
o Art. 8 (6) EUTMR and 5 (3) (c) of Directive 2015/2436 : would leave out in block national GIs for agricultural
‘... Upon opposition [...] the trade mark applied for shall not be registered [...] pursuant to
the Union legislation or national law providing for the protection of designations of origin
products, wines and spirits and would limit the applica-
or geographical indications [...]’ bility of this ground to national provisions dealing with
handicraft and similar products.
This also means that GIs protected by virtue of Interna-
In the area of AG, the legislator sought to strengthen
tional Agreements to which the EU is not a party, but
the protection of GIs, traditional terms for wine, tradi-
a number of Member States are, like the Lisbon Agree-
tional specialities guaranteed and plant variety rights,
ment, not enforceable in the EUTM system.
by expressly including PDOs and PGIs protected under
both EU and national legislation. Notwithstanding, it seems that quite a few Member
States still raise objections based on national rights,
In parallel, a new relative ground was introduced as
which implies that the system is not as watertight as
Article 8(6) EUTMR in respect of oppositions based on
it would appear.
PGIs and PDOs, both EU and national.
The main difference compared to the old regime is that
Future Developments
the conditions of protection have now been relaxed in
that opponents are no longer required to prove use in
the course of trade. In addition, the entitlement rules
have been adapted to the specificities of PGIs and PDOs
by referring to the persons authorised to exercise these PROTECTION OF PDOs/PGIs: OUTLOOK
rights and not to proprietors.
o Future EU legislation in the area of Non-Agri GIs:
Currently protectable but only available in few MS;
Validity of National GIs
As soon as EU legislates that protection ceases;
o Future ratification by the EU of the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement
However, the blanket reference to national law is part- Lisbon GIs currently not protected;
As soon as the EU ratifies Lisbon they will be entered in the EU Register;
ly misleading. It is now clear from the Judgment of the
CJEU in case C-56/16 P EUIPO v Instituto dos Vinhos do
Porto (PORT CHARLOTTE) that the reference to GIs pro-
tected under the laws of Member States cover only ar-
17Symposium 2018 Dimitris Botis
Therefore, the challenge in this area is not so much that goods or services comply with specific quality standards
the rules are unclear, but the instability of the system laid down by a certifying institution or organisation.
which is still in a state of flux, in the sense that future
There are two important limitations in relation to EU
developments could transform the current landscape in
Certification Marks:
two respects:
• First, the owner of the mark, who may be a public or
First, the expected legislative initiatives of the EU in the
private certifying entity, is precluded from using the
area of Non-Agricultural GIs (when and if they happen)
mark for the designated goods or services, i.e. cannot
on the one hand would bring the national rights cur-
be a producer of the certified goods, and
rently protected outside the scope of the EUTMR, unless
grandfathered, but on the other hand they would add a • second, an EU Certification Mark cannot distinguish
new layer of EU rights to the existing ones. goods or services by reference to their geographical
origin.
Secondly, a future ratification by the EU of the Geneva
Act of the Lisbon Agreement (which, as we understand, So far, we have received 95 applications for Certifica-
is under preparation) will also bring within the ambit tion Marks, but for almost half of them the Regulations
of the EUTMR those Lisbon GIs that are not already pro- of Use have not been submitted yet. Of these, 7 have
tected at EU level. already been published, and around a third have been
objected to.
These possibilities for further expansion in the medi-
um term reduce the predictability of the system, so the The most frequent problems diagnosed so far have to
sooner this transition is over, the better. do with incomplete Regulations of Use, and 6 cases have
received AG objections either because of problems with
the owner, or because they contain geographical terms.
Certification Marks in the EUTMR
Certification Marks in the Directive
CERTIFICATION MARKS IN THE EUTMR
Art. 83-93 EUTMR, Art. 2(3) and Art. 17 EUTMIR
Description Regulations of use
CERTIFICATION MARKS IN THE DIRECTIVE
Ownership Specific ground of refusal (misleading)
Art. 83 (1) EUTMR: An EU certification mark shall be an EU trade mark which is described as such [...] and o Art. 28 (4) of Directive 2015/2436 (≠ Art. 83 (1) EUTMR):
is capable of distinguishing goods or services which are certified by the proprietor of the mark in respect
of material, mode of manufacture of goods or performance of services, quality, accuracy or other ‘... By way of derogation from Article 4(1)(c), MS may provide that signs or indications which may
characteristics, with the exception of geographical origin, from goods and services not so certified. serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the goods may constitute guarantee or
certification marks. Such a guarantee or certification mark shall not entitle the proprietor to
prohibit a third party from using in the course of trade such signs or indications [...] In particular,
such a mark may not be invoked against a party who is entitled to use a geographical name....’
o Certification Mark = Not Uniform Treatment
On 1 October 2017, also a new unitary IP title came to life,
the EU certification mark. Unlike collective marks, the
essential function of which is more akin to that of indi- But if we turn to the Directive we see that the Member
vidual marks, to the extent that both ultimately relate States have discretion to introduce or not Certification
to commercial origin, Certification Marks indicate that Marks and, even where they do, they have the choice to
18Dimitris Botis Symposium 2018
allow the use of geographical terms as badges of certi- • The second is the level of distinctiveness enjoyed by
fication. In such cases, however, the exclusive right can- geographical terms; In the case of collective marks, we
not be invoked against the bona fide use of geographi- know from the HALLOUMI cases that in inter partes
cal terms by third parties. conflicts they are to be treated as weak. But is the an-
swer the same for Certification Marks in view of their
In practice, this means that the same geographical term
different essential function which is not to indicate
may be protected in some Member States as a collec-
commercial origin, but to certify provenance from a
tive mark and in some as a certification mark, whereas
certain locality?
in other Member States and the EU level cannot be pro-
tected at all. • Moreover, how far their different essential function
matters in the assessment of likelihood of confusion?
But if the concern behind the prohibition at EU level
Is the test seeking to establish whether there is con-
was not to allow a second layer of protection for GIs,
fusion as to origin or as to certification? Despite the
what was the reason for allowing the creation of such
reference of Art. 83 EUTMR to their special function,
rights at national level, where GIs cannot be granted in
when it comes to the examination of relative grounds
the first place as we saw earlier?
for refusal the Regulation merely remits to the general
provisions, which refer to confusion as to origin from
Challenges the same or connected undertakings.
In view of the low number of cases in this area, it may
take some time before the Court clarifies all these issues.
)
Absence of Transitional Arrangements
o "" !%" " !! "!(
#! !#" !!$ !" !'
!" "$ !! " !'
" "!!!! " #! '
o % " "!! "# " "" !&
o !# $ % ! & $ % % #% '-
$ % "!$$ %! '! ( #!& $ !# #&$ % !
"#! $ $% # $ !## $%#!#%%# $ % ! +
# #* # %! % $ 032/24, )% $ %.,
This inconsistency does not only have a theoretical val- ## % % "!# "" % ! ! % ( %! % !
ue. When Certification Marks that include geographical "#! $ % %!#% $.
terms are used as earlier rights in opposition proceed-
ings before the Office a number of issues arise:
• The first is whether fair use of such terms is a valid
defence in opposition proceedings; the answer seems Beyond the four topics already covered, there are also
to be in the negative, since the limitation of the exclu- risks arising from the omission of the legislator to in-
sive right in the law concerns only use, not the right clude transitional arrangements in the Regulation and
to register. the Directive, in particular as regards the possibility to in-
voke new grounds of refusal in cancellation proceedings
against marks registered or filed before the transition.
19Sie können auch lesen
