Trade Mark Law in Europe

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Mühlendahl ◽  
Dimitris Botis ◽  
Spyros Maniatis ◽  
Imogen Wiseman
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Trade Mark Law

In light of the ever-growing and developing jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and the General Court, and forthcoming substantive and systemic changes to the law, there is a need for a fresh and practical approach to the procedure and case law of trade marks in Europe. Trade Mark Law in Europe is a comprehensive guide to European trade mark law following the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the case law of the General Court. It provides a wide-ranging overview of the trade mark system, including detailed and critical discussion of forthcoming changes, as well as an in-depth look at the life of a trade mark up to enforcement. It considers the conditions for maintaining a registration, the protection and enforcement of trade marks, and the interface between trade mark law and other areas of practice. Finally, it offers detailed and insightful analysis of current developments, challenges, and opportunities. This is complemented by an international and comparative approach which selectively considers the contemporary jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States and general US practice, as well as national jurisprudence in areas not yet covered by the CJEU. Written by highly-regarded authors with considerable expertise across a range of constituencies, Trade Marks in Europe is a timely and important study of this complex and challenging area of law.

Trade Marks in Europe and the Court of Justice of the European Union

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Mühlendahl ◽  
Dimitris Botis ◽  
Spyros Maniatis ◽  
Imogen Wiseman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Trade Mark Law

The purpose of this chapter is to offer an introduction on the role of the Court of Justice and its effect on the development of trade mark law in Europe.

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.

The Ne Bis in Idem Principle in the Interpretation of European Courts: Towards Uniform Interpretation

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 955-977 ◽  
Author(s):  
NOREL NEAGU
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Criminal Matters

AbstractAs a result of the extension of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union over the former third pillar (Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters), several cases were referred to the Court for interpretation, inter alia, of the dispositions of the Schengen Convention dealing with criminal matters, especially the ne bis in idem principle. This principle was also addressed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the Supreme Court of the United States. While addressing the problem at international level, this article focuses principally on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights in the field of the ne bis in idem principle, concisely presenting the legal framework, findings of the Courts, and some conclusions on the interpretation of the principle. The study also analyses the absence of uniformity in interpretation and the use of different criteria in addressing identical situations by different courts, or even by the same court, concluding on a (seemingly) fortunate approximation in interpretation at European level.

scholarly journals Art. 22(4) Brussels i regulation and its successoronly only apply to cases concerned with the actual registration or validityof the listed ip rights. Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5 october 2017, c-341/16 = Artículo 22.4 del Reglamento Bruselas I y su sucesor solo se aplican a los casos relacionados con el registro efectivo o la validez de los derechos de propiedad intelectual enumerados. Comentario de la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 5 de octubre de 2017, c-341/16

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 937
Author(s):  
Kilian Sendlmeier
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
General Provision

Abstract: The CJEU reaffirms its established case law on Art. 22(4) Brussels I Regulation (No. 44/2001) and interprets the provision narrowly. Courts in member states in which patents, trade marks, designs, or similar rights that are required to be deposited or registered, have jurisdiction only in cases that are actually concerned with the registration or validity of these IP rights. A case concerned with the potential ownership of such rights falls within the general provision of Art. 2(1) Brussels I and, therefore, is to be brought before courts in the member state where the defendant is domiciled.Keywords: Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters, Brussels I Regulation (No. 44/2001), Jurisdiction under Art. 2(1) and Art. 22(4) Brussels I Regulation, jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with IP rights, registration of property of a trade markResumen: El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea mantiene su jurisprudencia establecida sobre el Art. 22.4 del Reglamento (CE) nº 44/2001 de Bruselas I e interpreta este artículo en sentido estricto. Los tribunales de los Estados miembros en los que se exige el depósito o el registro de patentes, marcas, dibujos y modelos u otros derechos similares solo son competentes en los casos en que se la posible titularidad de ese derecho entra en el ámbito de la disposición general del Art. 2.1 del Reglamento Bruselas I y, por lo tanto, debe ser llevado ante los tribunales de aquel estado miembro en el que el demandado esté domiciliado.Palabras clave: Procedimiento prejudicial, Cooperación judicial en materia civil y mercantil, Reglamento (CE) n° 44/2001, Competencia judicial, Artículo 2, apartado 1, Competencia de los órganos jurisdiccionales del domicilio del demandado, Artículo 22, punto 4, Competencia exclusiva en materia detítulos de propiedad intelectual, inscripción como titular de una marca.

scholarly journals The possibility of colour registration per se

2014 ◽  
pp. 81-99
Author(s):  
Maria Miguel Carvalho
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
General Interest ◽  
Great Length ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Current State ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Trade Mark Registration

The admissibility of colour registration per se has been discussed at great length. In opposition to this possibility, the valuation of the general interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours for other operators in the market («depletion theory»), has been invoked, among other things. Nevertheless, in the current state of Community law the answer to this possibility seems to be affirmative, after the requirements of trade mark registration have been met. In this study we focused briefly on the main issues that arise in this area, in light of the Court of Justice of the European Union case law.

scholarly journals How the Domain Name Scruffles are Rocking the Foundations of Trade Mark law

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 321
Author(s):  
Rachel Keane
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Proper Function ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Potential Value ◽  
Trade Mark Law

The central proposition of this paper is that it is no longer valid to assert that the only and proper function of the trade is to denote the source of the product to which it is affixed.  Trade marks are being employed in many diverse ways.  In the age of mass media, trade marks may provide the key to marketing successfully.  The dilution doctrine has developed in recognition of the potential value of a trade mark to tis owner.  Anti-dilution provisions, as far as they go, do provide a useful tool in protecting the trade mark itself.  However, as technology continues to advance, so does the trade mark function.  The so-called domain name disputes, primarily in the United States are evidence of this claim.  Not only have the decisions in these cases furthered the development of the trade mark legislation, they have demonstrated the inadequacies of the current trade mark legislation and the desperate need for reform.  These inadequacies are examined and reform is proposed.  Finally, the paper assesses the desirability of allowing the further expansion of the trade mark.  It is submitted that the proper expansion of the trade mark should not be resisted. 

scholarly journals Zdolność rejestrowa zapachowych znaków towarowych przed i po wprowadzeniu dyrektywy 2015/2436. Zmiana w praktyce czy jedynie w teorii?

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 319
Author(s):  
Barbara Pietrzyk-Tobiasz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Marketing Strategies ◽  
Graphic Representation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Before And After

<p>Smells are an unusual way of communication, allowing not only for the creation of associations in the minds of the recipients, but also for evoking certain emotions. Therefore, they are used in marketing strategies and they may become trade marks. Unfortunately, until the adoption of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, these signs were, in principle, excluded from registration. This was due to their inability to meet the requirement of graphic representation as understood by the criteria established by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. However, under this Directive, this requirement was abolished and replaced by the criterion of so-called representativeness of the sign. The purpose of this article is to present olfactory marks from both a marketing perspective and the admissibility of their registration, as well as to analyze the practice of registering them before and after the adoption of Directive 2015/2436.</p>

Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement: A Common Law Perspective

2020 ◽  
pp. 403-420
Author(s):  
Richard Arnold
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
Intermediary Liability ◽  
Eu Trade Mark Law ◽  
Blocking Injunctions

This chapter discusses UK case law in the domain of intermediary liability and trade mark infringement, while situating this common law perspective within EU trade mark law, the e-Commerce Directive, and the Enforcement Directive. The chapter first describes liability stemming from legal principles which are not particular to intermediaries, including primary and accessory liability of online intermediaries for trade mark infringement. Later, the chapter reviews liability depending on the application of principles which are specific to intermediaries, the intermediary liability proper. In this context, the chapter looks into injunctions against intermediaries whose services are used to infringe trade marks that are made available in national jurisdictions under the implementation of Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive. Although other kinds of injunctions against intermediaries are available, the chapter focuses on website-blocking injunctions, which have been recently ported from the copyright domain, where they have been more traditionally deployed, to the trade mark domain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document