Broad Specifications and Intent to Use: Is the EU Trade Mark System Credible?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Arnold
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Intent To Use ◽  
The Eu

Abstract An assessment of the credibility of the EU trade mark system in the light of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-371/18 Sky v SkyKick leads to the following conclusions: the decisions that lack of clarity and precision of specifications of goods and services is not a ground of invalidity and that partial bad faith when applying to register a trade mark leads to partial invalidity are unsurprising; the decision that applying to register a trade mark without intending to use it can amount to bad faith, at least in some circumstances, is an important step forward that gives national courts a tool with which to combat unjustifiably broad specifications of goods and services; but the jury is still out with regard to the EU trade mark system’s acceptance of broad terms such as ‘computer software’ in specifications.

scholarly journals Facing the 'Bad Faith'

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-127
Author(s):  
Tamar Khuchua
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
The Eu

The Court of Justice of the European Union has suggested that when the concept set out in the EU regulation is not defined by that regulation, it should be understood according to its usual, everyday meaning. There is no doubt that the understanding of ‘bad faith’ might differ from one person to another and especially from one firm to another. Indeed, ‘bad faith’ in trade mark law might take many different forms which are not easy to detect as the large number of cases concerning the issue of ‘bad faith’ in relation to national and EU trade marks illustrate. By analysing the current legislative framework as well as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the paper suggests that in order to maintain and even extend the smooth functioning of the EU trade mark system, legislative changes should be introduced. In particular, it is argued that it is reasonable to examine the intention of trade mark applicants already at the application stage in order to avoid the waste of resources and the burden of dealing with the trade marks registered in ‘bad faith’ in the invalidity proceedings post factum and to provide a non-exhaustive list of what elements the ‘bad faith’ can consist of. These amendments should also do good in terms of serving the broader goals of the EU law, which amongst others include, undistorted competition, legal certainty and sound administration.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC AND ACCESSORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-499
Author(s):  
Christina Angelopoulos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Explicit Definition ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Gradual Accumulation ◽  
The Eu

In recent judgments, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been developing its interpretation of the notion of “communication to the public”. This forms one of the exclusive rights of copyright holders that have been harmonised by the InfoSoc Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC (OJ 2001 L 167 p.1)). As was established in 2006 (Case C-306/05, Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles, ECLI:EU:C:2006:764, at [31]), despite the lack of an explicit definition in that directive, the notion of a “communication to the public” must be given “an autonomous and uniform interpretation” throughout the EU. This finding initially resulted in the creation of a considerable amount of uncertainty for national courts. The gradual accumulation of information through subsequent CJEU judgments has begun to bring some clarity, while also raising new questions.

scholarly journals The Notion of the European Union Trademark

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-31
Author(s):  
Jarmila Lazíková
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

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.

scholarly journals Trends in resolution of disputes in the field of direct taxation (review of the conference “Recent and Pending Cases at the Court of Justice of the European Union on Direct Taxation”, Vienna, November 8–10, 2018)

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 144-147
Author(s):  
K. Ponomareva
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Income Taxation ◽  
Scientific Conference ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Direct Taxation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Beneficial Ownership ◽  
Personal Income Taxation ◽  
The Eu

The report on the scientific conference “Recent and Pending Cases at the Court of Justice of the European Union on Direct Taxation”) is presented in the paper. The conference took place on November 8-10, 2018 at Vienna University of Economics and Business. Conferences on the EU Court of Justice decisions in the field of direct taxation have been held in Vienna annually since 2007. The most relevant topics at the 2018 conference were: increased understanding of state aid and the obligations of national courts to notify the European Commission; fiscal unity; taxation of dividends paid by non-residents; taxation of personal income; taxation of income from capital withdrawal; beneficial ownership issues; group taxation issues.

scholarly journals Limits on Limitations: The Essence of Fundamental Rights in the EU

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 779-793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen Lenaerts
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Competing Interests ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe concept of the essence of a fundamental right—set out in Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the “Charter”)—operates as a constant reminder that our core values as Europeans are absolute. In other words, they are not up for balancing. As the seminal judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in Schrems shows, where a measure imposes a limitation on the exercise of a fundamental right that is so intense and so comprehensive that it calls into question that right as such, that measure is incompatible with the Charter, as it deprives the right at issue of its essence. This is so without the need for a balancing exercise of competing interests, because a measure that compromises the very essence of a fundamental right is automatically disproportionate. Therefore, the present contribution supports the contention that in order for the concept of essence to function in a constitutionally meaningful way, both EU and national courts should apply the “respect-for-the-essence test” before undertaking a proportionality assessment.

Targeting accepted as a criterion to establish international jurisdiction in online EU trade mark infringement cases

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (12) ◽  
pp. 926-927
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Court of Justice of the European Union, AMS Neve Ltd and Others v Heritage Audio SL and Pedro Rodríguez Arribas, Case C-172/18, EU:C:2019:674, 5 September 2019 (‘AMS Neve’) In its decision in AMS Neve, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has adopted a dynamic reading of Article 97(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation 207/2009 (now Article 125(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) and clarified that—in the event of an infringement of an EU trade mark over the Internet—also the courts of the place at which the defendant’s activity is targeted have jurisdiction to hear the resulting action.

scholarly journals The Taricco saga and the consolidation of judicial dialogue in the European Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Bonelli
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Note ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
The Past ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common ◽  
Constitutional Identity ◽  
The Eu

In December 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its awaited decision on the Taricco II case, responding to a preliminary reference from the Italian Corte Costituzionale. The latter, unhappy with the outcome of the earlier Taricco I decision, asked for a re-interpretation of Article 325 TFEU and threatened the Court of Justice with the possible activation of its controlimiti doctrine. The CJEU partially ‘corrected’ its previous ruling and prevented an open conflict between EU law and Italian constitutional law. This case note discusses the saga and its three episodes against the background of the growing constitutional conversation between top European courts. It argues that Taricco is a positive episode of judicial dialogue and may further contribute to its consolidation: on one hand, constitutional courts are increasingly willing to ‘play the game’ and refer to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU; on the other, the Court of Justice seems more reactive than in the past to constitutional courts’ claims and now considers them with increasing attention and detail. Finally, the case note reflects on the partially diverging languages for constitutional dialogue: national courts use the language of constitutional identity, while the CJEU prefers to refer to the ‘common constitutional principles of the EU’.

scholarly journals Member state's lawlessness and European law – the case of Poland

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Mezyk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Political Influence ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
The Eu

Since 2015 the Polish authorities have undertaken numerous actions subordinating the country's judiciary to political influence. These steps met resistance from the European Union (EU), including proceedings by the European Commission and at the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The judgement of the ECJ in the case A.K. and Others v Sąd Najwyższy (2019) brought the situation to another level by empowering national courts to verify the independence of other domestic judicial bodies. While the ECJ empowered Polish judges to reject the domestic court-packing, the Polish state countered this with internal disciplinary sanctions. I discuss this tension and consider the upcoming conflict between the ECJ and the Polish Constitutional Tribunal (‘CT’). I conclude by highlighting the fact that whereas Poland breaches European law, the breach will be hard to rectify due to the lack of independent enforcement mechanisms on the side of the EU.

Institutional organisation of the European Union in the time of crisis – horizontal division of power and functions

2016 ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Monika Poboży
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
European Council ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Strong Position ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Eu

The article poses a question about the existence of the rule of separation of powers in the EU institutional system, as it is suggested by the wording of the treaties. The analysis led to the conclusion, that in the EU institutional system there are three separated functions (powers) assigned to different institutions. The Council and the European Parliament are legislative powers, the Commission and the European Council create a “divided executive”. The Court of Justice is a judicial power. The above mentioned institutions gained strong position within their main functions (legislative, executive, judicial), but the proper mechanisms of checks and balances have not been developed, especially in the relations between legislative and executive power. These powers do not limit one another in the EU system. In the EU there are therefore three separated but arbitrary powers – because they do not limit and balance one another, and are not fully controlled by the member states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document