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.

35. Trade mark registration

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Trade Mark Registration ◽  
The Eu

This chapter focuses on the process of registration for trade marks in the UK, the European Union, and other countries. It begins by explaining the differences in procedures and documentation needed in filing trade mark applications at the national, regional, and international levels. The role of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in processing applications in the EU is considered, along with the international filing systems established under the 1891 Madrid Agreement and the 1989 Madrid Protocol. The chapter concludes by presenting possible avenues through which to acquire trade mark protection. It briefly considers the possible impacts of Brexit.

Distinctiveness of the Marks

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilanah Fhima ◽  
Dev S. Gangjee
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
European Trade ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Scope Of Protection ◽  
Practical Level

The role of distinctiveness is perhaps the least understood element of the likelihood of confusion analysis. Obscure in its origins, the idea that the more distinctive a mark is, the more likely confusion should be has been repeatedly accepted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), but this is also strongly criticised by commentators and UK judges in particular. This chapter seeks to understand the role that distinctiveness plays in the assessment of confusion, explaining how it entered the European trade mark system and critically evaluating its role. On a practical level, this chapter seeks to understand the impact of distinctiveness through examples of levels of distinctiveness that have and have not been accepted to result in enhanced protection, and also to consider how tribunals have dealt with the overlap between distinctiveness for registrablity and likelihood of confusion purposes. However, the chapter ends with a note of warning: although it is possible to find a significant number of cases where distinctiveness is employed to enhance the scope of protection trade marks, in the vast majority of cases, this factor is either not mentioned or deemed irrelevant.

Trade Marks as Objects of Property

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Kur ◽  
Martin Senftleben
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings ◽  
Eu Trade Mark Law

Harmonized EU trade mark law contains rules on trade marks as objects of property in Articles 16 to 24a of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) and Articles 22 to 26 of the Trade Mark Directive (TMD). These rules cover transfer and assignment, the possibility of giving trade marks as security and granting rights in rem, the levy of execution, the involvement of EUTMs in insolvency proceedings, and issues of trade mark licensing. The substantive provisions are accompanied by procedural rules concerning the recordal of corresponding legal transactions in the register. While the TMD only guarantees the possibility of registration, the EUTMR contains more detailed registration requirements.

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.

Acquisition Of Rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Kur ◽  
Martin Senftleben
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Nordic Countries ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Passing Off ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
European Trade

Under European trade mark law, protection is only acquired through registration (Article 6 EUTMR; Article 1 TMD). Whether the mark is actually used or not is of no relevance at this stage: neither is it a requirement for protection, nor does it grant a substantive right under the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) or the Trade Mark Directive (TMD). However, such protection may follow from national law. Member States are free to grant use-based trade mark protection within their jurisdiction, and in a number of them—Austria, Germany, Italy, the Nordic countries, and, in the form of passing off, the United Kingdom—such protection is available under terms that may differ from country to country. The specificities of the legal regime applying to such signs are independent from the provisions in the TMD.

scholarly journals An Autonomous EU Functionality Doctrine for Shape Exclusions

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 567-577
Author(s):  
Uma Suthersanen ◽  
Marc D Mimler
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Functionality Doctrine

Abstract Exclusionary subject matter are often underpinned by public interest considerations. In the case of shapes of products, the Court of Justice of the European Union has aligned the interpretation of the relevant exclusionary provisions within design and trade mark laws. More recently, European jurisprudence within copyright law in relation to conditions of protection has imported the same considerations so as to regulate the protection of shapes of products. This article explores the multitude of doctrinal and policy reasons underpinning shape exclusions and argues that the Court is consciously creating an EU autonomous functionality doctrine within intellectual property law. We also argue that the Court is building a European macro-rationale within these laws namely to ensure that protection does not unduly restrict market freedom and competition.

A Fourth in the Court: Why Are There Advocates General in the Court of Justice?

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 529-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Bobek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Negative Answer ◽  
Vantage Point ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Level ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Why Questions ◽  
Internal Justification

AbstractWhy are there Advocates General in the Court of Justice of the European Union? A standard answer to this question is likely to be either a simple textual reference (because the Treaty provides for them); or an appeal to authority (because the original framers of the Treaties put them there, inspired by the French legal system); or a rather pragmatic appeal to their on-going utility (because they assist the Court and they do a great job); or any combination of these three. All of these explanations are valid. This contribution, however, attempts to go a little deeper in discerning what may be the ideological justification for Advocates General in the Court of Justice. It does so by carrying out a historical and comparative study concerning their origins and systemic justification from the vantage point of a national lawyer coming from a Member State that does not know any type of a ‘fourth in the court’.The first part of the contribution explains which factors have considerably eroded the position of Advocates General in the course of the last decade and why questions concerning their role and its justification became topical. Second, the commonly invoked reference to the French inspiration for introducing Advocates General is critically examined. It is suggested that justifications once provided with respect to the office of commissaire du gouvernement in the Conseil d’État can hardly be used on the European level with respect to Advocates General. Third, possibilities of internal justification of the role of Advocates General are examined: are Advocates General providing any unique assistance to the Court of Justice, which could not be provided for in different ways? With a negative answer to the latter question, the last part of the argument offers a simple yet solid overreaching justification as to why there should be Advocates General in the Court of Justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document