Trademark Law and Advertising Law in the European Union: Conflicts and Convergence

AbstractThe EU trademark law has recorded the important changes in the last years. The Community trademark in the past and the EU trademark at the present have become very popular legal measures not only in the EU Member States but also in the third countries. Its preferences are increasing year to year. The EU trademark may consist of a sign that fulfils two main attributes. Firstly, there is a distinctive character. Secondly, there is a capability of being represented on the Register of the EU trademarks. The second attribute is new and replaced the previous attribute - capability of being represented graphically. The interpretation of the above mentioned attributes is not possible without the judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is necessary to take into account the kind of trademark, list of the goods and services, which should be signed by the trademark, and its perception by the public. The paper includes the main judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union related to the interpretation of the sign that may be registered as the EU trademark. They are very helpful in the application practice of the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the national offices of the intellectual property as well.

Download Full-text

Comparative Advertising in the European Union

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s0020589300062564 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 47 (4) ◽

pp. 855-876 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Paul Spink ◽

Ross Petty

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Federal Trade Commission ◽

Case Law ◽

Single Market ◽

The European Union ◽

Comparative Advertising ◽

Advertising Law

More than 20 years after the measure was first proposed, the European Union has finally succeeded in adopting a directive designed to harmonise disparate national laws relating to the use of comparative advertising in the single market.1 In this article the authors examine the background, rationale and substance of the new legislation, before considering its impact on the current UK law. With a view to the possibility that implementation may contribute to the transatlantic harmonisation of advertising law, the new regime is measured against the liberal benchmark of US case law and recent Federal Trade Commission policy.

Download Full-text

Trademark Law Developments in the European Union

Intellectual Property Law and Policy Volume 10 ◽

10.5040/9781472564290.ch-019 ◽

2014 ◽

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

The European Union ◽

Trademark Law

Download Full-text

Hong Kong (‘.hk’)

Domain Name Law And Practice ◽

10.1093/oso/9780199663163.003.0020 ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

Hong Xue

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Hong Kong ◽

United Kingdom ◽

New Zealand ◽

Common Law ◽

The European Union ◽

Trademark Law ◽

The United Kingdom

The current trademark law is the Trademarks Ordinance (TMO, Chapter 559) and the Trademarks Rules (Chapter 559A). The TMO is modeled on the trademark laws of the countries of the European Union, in particular, the United Kingdom Trademarks Act 1994. The relevant United Kingdom cases as well as those of other common law countries (such as Australia, New Zealand), although not binding, provide guidance on the interpretation of Hong Kong trademark law. The TMO grants exclusive rights to the owners of registered trademarks.

Download Full-text

Messi vs. Massi, Prior Right vs. Reputation: The Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Its Assessment with Regard to the Turkish Trademark Law

GRUR International ◽

10.1093/grurint/ikab100 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Çiğdem Yatağan Özkan

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Intellectual Property ◽

Case Law ◽

Football Player ◽

Court Decision ◽

Court Case ◽

The European Union ◽

Trademark Law ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Likelihood Of Confusion

Abstract The Messi case,1 which originated with the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in 2011 and was finalized in 2020, surprised the IP world/practitioners with the remarks of the first instance court and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as their findings were contrary to the established case law regarding the implementation of the relative grounds of refusal. Lionel Messi was a party to the court case as the applicant of the later application for the same classes of goods; the first instance court overruled the appeal of the owner of the earlier trademark based on relative grounds, given Lionel Messi’s reputation as a famous football player and thus the reputation of his surname ‘Messi’, even though the two trademarks were considered visually and phonetically similar. It was reiterated in the court decision that the reputation of the owner of the later trademark application neutralized the likelihood of confusion with the earlier trademark. Moreover, the judgment (dated 17 September 2020) of the Tenth Chamber of the CJEU went beyond the ordinary scope of trademark law. In this study we will discuss, in the context of the Messi decision, the influence of the reputation of a later trademark on conceptual differentiation and the possible results of not adducing evidence proving the reputation of a trademark.

Download Full-text

A marca olfativa no novo código da propriedade industrial de Moçambique

Revista Electrónica de Direito ◽

10.24840/2182-9845_2019-0002_0008_ ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 185-204

Author(s):

Salomão António Muressama Viagem

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Graphical Representation ◽

Graphic Representation ◽

Legal Systems ◽

The European Union ◽

Brand Name ◽

Single Application ◽

Industrial Property ◽

Trademark Law ◽

Controversial Aspect

The most recent Industrial Property Code of Mozambique (CPIM), approved by Decree 41/2015 of 31 December, brought, among other innovations in the field of trademarks, the consecration of the olfactory brand, one of the "new complex in terms of distinctive capacity and graphic representation, the latter being a very controversial aspect in the field of registration assumptions of the new brands. Although the problem of graphic representation has been circumvented by the European Union trademark law in accordance with its new Trademark Directive ( (EU) 15/2436 of Parliament and Council of 16 December 2015) which has removed it from the range of requirements of the trademark concept; many legal systems such as Mozambican law still maintain it. In fact, the reason for this theme is: to study the olfactory mark and its tutelage in Mozambique. The graphic representation of the new brands, and especially of the olfactory mark, is generally problematic. It seems that the new Industrial Property Code of Mozambique has been daring to consecrate this type of mark following the brand name (of the same species was provided for in the previous Code without however having known a single application for registration so far among other possible reasons, due to the difficulty of graphical representation. Will not end the olfactory mark by following the same path and be another type of trademark foreseen in CPIM without any registration? Nevertheless, with the consecration of the olfactory mark, the attention of the Mozambican legislator must be recognized and welcomed by the dynamics of the types of brands that currently have as a whole the new brands as an undeniable reality.

Download Full-text