THE ‘BABY-DRY’ CASE: THE MODERNISATION OF TRADE MARKS?

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52
Author(s):  
Jennifer Davis

WHEN is a monopoly not a monopoly? Following the decision of the European Court of Justice in Case C-383/99 P Procter & Gamble v. Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market (OHIM) [2002] E.T.M.R. 3, the answer appears to be when it is a registered trade mark.

Author(s):  
Hana Kelblová

The article deals with the verification of the starting hypothesis of complementariness of the law of consumer protection and the law of intellectual property. In order to achieve that goal the author analyzes individual the Czech Trade Marks Act from the standpoint of protection of rights and interests of consumers.The article follows the categorical requirement of a public law rule, the Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits deceiving consumers and establishes that deceiving may also consist in offering products and services unjustified designated by misleading trade mark.The consumer is deceived most frequently when trade marks are used for designation of products and their promotion. The Trade Marks Act may be analyzed in relation to consumer protection first from the standpoint of consumer protection against trade marks misleading someone about the origin and quality of products and services designated by them. Then it is possible to examine the question whether requirements of a designation for being registered as a trade mark are at the same time those attributes of the trade mark which meet the declared intention of the lawmaker, i.e. that the trade mark should be a source of information for the consumer about the origin and quality of the product de­sig­na­ted by it.Especially, the article deals with an interpretation of the conception „Likelihood of Confusion“ as the fundamental conception while judging the conflict with elderly trademarks applying for the re­gi­stra­tion into the list of The Patent Office.A perception of an average consumer is a fundamental factor for a judgement of „Likelihood of Confusion“ as results from the decision practice of The Czech Patent Office, Czech courts and The European Court of Justice. This is proof of the conclusion that rules of the Trademark Law are rules of the Consumer protection Law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 117
Author(s):  
Justyna Konikowska-Kuczyńska

<p class="Textbodyuser">On 16 March 2019 the amendment of the Act – the Industrial Property Law, which implemented the European Parliament and EU Council Directive 2015/2436 of 16 December 2015, aiming the rapprochement of legislation within the membership countries regarding trade marks.<strong> </strong>The essential change, that the amendment implemented is the cancellation of the necessity of graphical representation of the trade mark, what allows to simplify the registration of the unconventional trade marks. The purpose of the article is to present how the registration of unconventional trade marks looked within the light of the Luxembourg tribunal’s statements.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-266
Author(s):  
Christian HENRICH-FRANKE

The European Court of Justice condemned the EC-Council (of transport ministers) in an unprecedented process for inaction in the realisation of a common transport policy on 22nd May 1985. The Court confirmed the plaintiff’s (the European Parliament) statement of claim that the Council hadn’t met his obligation to enact a competition order, to provide freedom services in crossborder transportation and to regulate access to domestic transport markets. This contribution analyses the Court’s verdict within the context of the EC transport policy in the 1980s. This also sheds new light on the realisation of the EC internal market, especially regarding sectors like infrastructures which define fundamental conditions for market operations within the EC.


2021 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. 144-154
Author(s):  
Vadim Voynikov ◽  

Mutual trust is one of the central principles of the area of freedom, security and justice and the whole EU. Despite the fact, that mutual trust is not stipulated in founding treaties, this principle has been widely developed by the European Court of Justice. The purpose of this article is to identify the legal and political components of mutual trust in the EU, as well as the approaches to its implementation. The author comes to the conclusion that the principle of mutual trust originated from the internal market, however its development is mostly associated with the area of freedom, security and justice. Mutual trust in the EU presupposes that a member state does not need additional verification that another member state respects Union law and fundamental rights. Initially, the principle of mutual trust was given the absolute character, but in the post-Lisbon period, “blind trust” was replaced by the “earned trust”, which implies the possibility, in exceptional cases, to refuse mutual trust to another member state if the latter violates fundamental rights. Despite the development of the concept of mutual trust by the European Court of Justice and other EU institutions, recently there has been a serious deficit of interstate trust within the Union. In this regard, the principle of mutual trust is becoming declarative.


2019 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 153-219
Author(s):  
Amedeo Arena

Abstract ‘Purely internal situations’ are sets of facts entirely confined within a single Member State. According to the ‘purely internal rule’, introduced by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1979, purely internal situations lie outside the scope of the internal market fundamental freedoms and of other EU provisions having a cross-border scope. On the fortieth anniversary of the jurisprudential genesis of the purely internal rule, this article seeks to examine its origins, rationale, and evolution, by analyzing the most relevant patterns in the over 250 preliminary rulings handed down in disputes involving purely internal situations. This survey will enable an assessment of the systemic significance of the purely internal rule and of the consequences that abolishing that rule would have for the European integration process.


2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Thwaites

It is common knowledge that the Internal Market is based on the notion of free movement which, in turn, rests on four basic freedoms (goods, persons, services and capital). The European Court of Justice (hereinafter “Court”) has always interpreted these freedoms broadly while construing the exceptions to these freedoms strictly. This approach was to no small extent based on a presumption of mutual trust and mutual recognition among Member States. It allowed the Court, in many cases, to ensure free movement within the Internal Market without having to await the adoption of harmonised European Community measures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document