Genuine Use of a Trade Mark in a Form Different from the One Registered

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Genuine Use ◽  
The One

Understanding Screen Franchising

2015 ◽  
Vol 156 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Moran
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Dramatic Character ◽  
Ugly Betty ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
The Media ◽  
The One ◽  
Media And Communication

Handbooks about the business practice of franchising do not seem to consider whether the practice occurs in television and other media industries. This lack of regard is replicated by media and communication scholars who fail to consider how this kind of media licensing works, even though the term franchising' is frequently adopted. To place the topic in a wider realm of critical inquiry, this article analyses a set of distinct economic, legal and cultural parameters that have to do with media intertext franchising on the one hand and television format franchising on the other. It finds that the two sets of practices operate under different regimes of legal protection, one concentrating on trade mark law and the other focusing on copyright law. In turn, this raises a question concerning the legal protectability of television program formats such as Ugly Betty under a legal shield associated with the media intertext rather than the television format. The presence of dramatic character would seem to be crucial to facilitating the building of a brand associated with a fictional character's aura or image.

Limitations, Defences, and Genuine Use

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Kur ◽  
Martin Senftleben
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Essential Role ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Competing Interests ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Genuine Use ◽  
European Trade ◽  
The Common

As with other intellectual property rights, the exclusive rights of the trade mark proprietor are limited in several respects. At the international level, Article 17 TRIPS offers room for the adoption of ‘limited exceptions’ in domestic legislation (see paragraphs 2.68–2.72). On this basis, Article 14 of the Trade Mark Directive (TMD) and Article 12 of the European Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provide a tool for reconciling the interests of the trade mark owner with competing interests of other traders and the public at large. As explained by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), these provisions, by limiting the effects of the exclusive rights of the trade mark owner, seek ‘to reconcile the fundamental interests of trade mark protection with those of free movement of goods and freedom to provide services in the common market in such a way that trade mark rights are able to fulfil their essential role in the system of undistorted competition which the Treaty seeks to establish and maintain’.

A kalpis from Piraeus Street by Polygnotos

2002 ◽  
Vol 97 ◽  
pp. 297-308
Author(s):  
Olga E. Tzachou-Alexandri
Keyword(s):  
Young Women ◽  
Early Period ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Wall Painting ◽  
The Body ◽  
The Other ◽  
Artistic Style ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

The kalpis published here was found in 1961 in Piraeus Street. The scene depicted on the body of the vase comprises four young women. The principal person, around whom the representation is organised, is a woman seated on a chair. She wears a chiton and a himation, has a diadem on her head and her two hands hold a larnax on her knees. The other three women are standing. They are dressed in pepla and the two on the right also wear diadems. The one standing in front of her holds an exaleiptron. High up in the background above the head of the seated woman hangs a wreath. The artistic style recalls Polygnotos and a comparison with his other works dates our kalpis to the decade 450–440 BC, in his early period. The graffito on the mouth of the vase, ON…I, is a known trade mark and probably concerns its price. The scene, which is set in a gynaeceum, is interpreted as the adornment of a bride, and is one of the earliest such representations known. It was probably inspired by wall painting. The Piraeus Street kalpis has now answered the question of the origin of this type of gynaeceum scene, which must be ascribed to Polygnotos himself and not to one of the artists of his Group.

26. Trade marks—infringement and revocation

2019 ◽  
pp. 446-488
Author(s):  
Paul Torremans
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement ◽  
Indefinite Number ◽  
Genuine Use ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Nature Quality

This chapter discusses the law on trade mark infringement and revocation. Section 10 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 establishes the basic criteria for an infringement action. If a mark is already on the Trade Marks Register, it is an infringement to use the same mark for the same goods or services. The grant of a trade mark lasts initially for 10 years from the date of its registration, and this may be renewed for a seemingly indefinite number of further periods of 10 years thereafter on payment of the appropriate fee. There are four grounds listed in s. 46(1) of the 1994 Act for revocation: (i) five years’ lack of genuine use of the mark in the UK without cause; (ii) a suspension for the same period (after initial use); (iii) the mark has become the common name for the product in question in the trade; and (iv) if the mark has been used in a misleading manner, especially as to the nature, quality, or origin of the goods or services in question.

scholarly journals ZNAČAJAN UTJECAJ OBLIKA PROIZVODA NA VRIJEDNOST PROIZVODA KAO APSOLUTNA PREPREKA ZA REGISTRACIJU ŽIGA

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 167-200
Author(s):  
Tea Hasić
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Us ◽  
Negative Side Effects ◽  
The One ◽  
Functionality Doctrine ◽  
The Eu

The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of “substantial value rule” as an absolute ground for trademark refusal. Originating from the US “aesthetic functionality doctrine”, the rule took a specific form in the EU. There it was incorporated in Directive (EU) 2015/2436 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks – Article 4 (1) (e) (iii), as well as in Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark - Article 7 (1) (e) (iii). Pursuant to “substantial value rule”, signs consisting exclusively of the shape that gives substantial value to the goods are not to be registered as trademarks or, if registered, are liable to be declared invalid. The objective of the paper is therefore threefold: a) to define the rationale of “substantial value rule”; b) to analyze relevant case law; c) to conclude whether a respective rule shall be abolished (providing its purpose may be achieved by other legal instruments without negative side-effects) or kept in the EU trademark law system. Bearing in mind the rationale of “substantial value rule” (on the one hand) and numerous problems that arise whenever “substantial value rule” is applied in practice (on the other hand) the paper provides guidelines for its appropriate interpretation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document