The Confusion Test in European Trade Mark Law

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilanah Fhima ◽  
Dev S. Gangjee
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Systematic Account ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
European Trade

Historically, likelihood of confusion has been the core infringement test for trade mark law, and it remains the most frequently applied test in infringement actions by far. However, there are noticeable differences in how it is applied by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the General Court, and national courts; and questionable outcomes when it is applied in novel situations. This book is the first comprehensive and systematic account of the confusion test within the harmonised European trade mark system. It considers how the test is applied by national trade mark registries across EU member states, by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), by national courts, and by the CJEU. It offers practical guidance, while also evaluating the viability of more recent developments such as initial-interest confusion, post-sale confusion and consumer responses to uses of trade marks on the internet. The book analyses three distinct strata of legal doctrine: the decisions of the CJEU, including the General Court; the extensive body of decisions by EUIPO; and the application of harmonised trade mark law by courts of member states, focusing on leading decisions as well as wayward ones. It also draws upon the legal position in the US to illuminate these issues.

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.

International Registration (Madrid System)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Kur ◽  
Martin Senftleben
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Accession ◽  
Intergovernmental Organization ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
System P ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
Eu Trade Mark Law ◽  
The Eu

In Articles 145 to 161 of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR), EU trade mark law sets forth harmonized rules with regard to the international registration of marks under the Madrid System (see paragraphs 2.29–2.32). These provisions regulate the interplay between the Madrid Protocol (MP) and the EUTM system. While EU Member States may join both the Madrid Agreement (MA) and the MP, the EU—as an intergovernmental organization—only has the option of becoming a party to the MP (by virtue of Article 14(1)(b) MP). The EU accession to the MP occurred on 1 July 2004 (and entered into force on 1 October 2004).

EU Copyright Harmonization and CJEU Role and Action

2019 ◽  
pp. 7-36
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Relationship

Following an overview of legislative harmonization, this chapter discusses the composition, role, and functioning of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) before providing some numbers regarding activity in the copyright field. It presents data on: the composition of the Court (Judges-Rapporteur and Advocates General (AGs)), the relationship between the Court and its Judges-Rapporteur, areas in which national courts have made referrals, data on EU Member States from which the relevant referrals have been made, and interventions of individual Member States. Employment of statistical analysis has allowed consideration of a number of questions, including whether the Court tends to agree (it does) with the (non-binding) Opinion of the AG appointed in a certain case more or less often when the interpretation provided of certain copyright provision is expansive or not, and whether the background of the AG (academic or non-academic) has had any relevance from a statistical standpoint (it has not).

Non-uniform Application of European Union Private International Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 83-94
Author(s):  
Katarina Trimmings ◽  
Burcu Yüksel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
Funded Project ◽  
The Eu

This chapter draws on the findings of an EU-funded project titled (‘Cross-Border Litigation in Europe: Private International Law Legislative Framework, National Courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union’ (EUPILLAR) and discusses concerns over the lack of uniformity in the interpretation and application of the key EU Private International Law Regulations (Brussels I Regulation, Brussels IIa Regulation, Rome I Regulation, Rome II Regulation, Maintenance Regulation) across the EU Member States. The chapter provides examples of differing interpretations and applications of the same EU private international law rules in the EU through examples from various EU Member States, analyses the reasons behind the non-uniform interpretation and application, and suggests specific ways to rectify these problems.

scholarly journals Lower Instance National Courts and Tribunals in Member States and Their Judicial Dialogue with the Court of Justice of the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-36
Author(s):  
Graham Butler
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recent Developments

The vast majority of cases that are submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) through the preliminary reference procedure that is contained in Article 267 TFEU come from lower instance national courts and tribunals in EU Member States. As a result, it is not always appellate courts, or higher instance national courts and tribunals, such as courts of final appeal, which make orders for reference. Judicial dialogue between national courts and the Court through this Article 267 TFEU procedure is notable for its particular quality of it being open to receiving orders for reference, for an interpretation of EU law from national courts and tribunals – of any instance – from first instance, to final instance. But can this judicial dialogue between lower instance national courts and tribunals and the Court be impeded by national courts’ more senior national Brethren, with appeals being allowed against orders for reference within national legal orders? The case law of the Court on such an issue has been progressive, in that it developed slowly over time, and the Court, by 2021, becoming increasingly assertive. As will be analysed in this article, the Court’s approach to the arising issue has clearly been an attempt to balance the interests of judicial dialogue on the one hand, and national rules on the other. Yet, with the Court’s broader case law tightening the understanding of who constitutes the European judiciary, and ensuring that all national courts and tribunals remain independent from executive interference in EU Member States, the article commends recent developments, but makes the further plea for an affirmative judgment of the Court to not permit, as a matter of EU law, appeals against orders for reference made by lower instance national courts and tribunals in EU Member States, in the name of preserving judicial dialogue through the preliminary reference procedure.

Political aspects of security of the European Union Member States

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kusztykiewicz-Fedurek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Security ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
The Eu

Political security is very often considered through the prism of individual states. In the scholar literature in-depth analyses of this kind of security are rarely encountered in the context of international entities that these countries integrate. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to key aspects of political security in the European Union (EU) Member States. The EU as a supranational organisation, gathering Member States first, ensures the stability of the EU as a whole, and secondly, it ensures that Member States respect common values and principles. Additionally, the EU institutions focus on ensuring the proper functioning of the Eurozone (also called officially “euro area” in EU regulations). Actions that may have a negative impact on the level of the EU’s political security include the boycott of establishing new institutions conducive to the peaceful coexistence and development of states. These threats seem to have a significant impact on the situation in the EU in the face of the proposed (and not accepted by Member States not belonging to the Eurogroup) Eurozone reforms concerning, inter alia, appointment of the Minister of Economy and Finance and the creation of a new institution - the European Monetary Fund.

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.

scholarly journals European Regional Inequalities: The Other Face of Development

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 163
Author(s):  
Celeste Perrucchini ◽  
Hiroshi Ito
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Capita Income ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Per Capita Income ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Per Capita

Empirical evidence suggests an overall convergence in terms of GDP and per capita income occurring among the European Union (EU) Member States. Nevertheless, economic inequalities have been increasing at the regional level within European Union countries. Through the review of relevant literature, this study analyzes the increasing inequalities from an economical point of view, focusing on Italy and the UK as examples. First, a general overlook of the empirical evidence of the GDP and per capita income at national and sub-national levels will be presented. Second, an explanation of the possible causes of the results will be proposed through the use of economical and sociological theories. The findings of this research might uncover the relative inefficacy of EU Cohesion policies and point towards the necessity for deeper and more thoughtful measures to continue the convergence of Member States while preserving internal equilibria. This paper ends with discussions for the future directions of the EU.

Practice of the member states of the European Union in the field of anti-corruption regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmytro S. Melnyk ◽  
Oleg A. Parfylo ◽  
Oleksii V. Butenko ◽  
Olena V. Tykhonova ◽  
Volodymyr O. Zarosylo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Content Analysis Method ◽  
The Eu

Purpose The experience of most European Union (EU) Member States has demonstrated effective anti-corruption practices, making the EU one of the leaders in this field, which can be used as an example to learn from in the field of anti-corruption. The purpose of this study is to analyze and identify the main features of anti-corruption legislation and strategies to prevent corruption at the national and supranational levels of the EU. Design/methodology/approach The following methods were used in the work: discourse and content analysis, method of system analysis, method of induction and deduction, historical-legal method, formal-legal method, comparative-legal method and others. Using the historical and legal method, the evolution of the formation of anti-corruption regulation at the supranational level was revealed. The comparative law method helped to compare the practices of the Member States of the EU in the field of anti-corruption regulation. The formal-legal method is used for generalization, classification and systematization of research results, as well as for the correct presentation of these results. Findings The main results, prospects for further research and the value of the material. The paper offers a critical review of key EU legal instruments on corruption, from the first initiatives taken in the mid-1990s to recent years. Originality/value In addition, the article analyzes the relevant anti-corruption legislation in the EU member states that are in the top 10 countries with the lowest level of corruption, namely: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg.

scholarly journals National Food Safety Systems in the European Union: A Comparative Survey

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Hadjigeorgiou ◽  
Elpidoforos S. Soteriades ◽  
Anastasios Philalithis ◽  
Anna Psaroulaki ◽  
Yiannis Tselentis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
European Union ◽  
Food Safety ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Comparative Survey ◽  
Safety Systems ◽  
Central Level ◽  
The Eu

This paper is a comparative survey of the National Food Safety Systems (NFSS) of the European Union (EU) Member-States (MS) and the Central EU level. The main organizational structures of the NFSS, their legal frameworks, their responsibilities, their experiences, and challenges relating to food safety are discussed. Growing concerns about food safety have led the EU itself, its MS and non-EU countries, which are EU trade-partners, to review and modify their food safety systems. Our study suggests that the EU and 22 out of 27 Member States (MS) have reorganized their NFSS by establishing a single food safety authority or a similar organization on the national or central level. In addition, the study analyzes different approaches towards the establishment of such agencies. Areas where marked differences in approaches were seen included the division of responsibilities for risk assessment (RA), risk management (RM), and risk communication (RC). We found that in 12 Member States, all three areas of activity (RA, RM, and RC) are kept together, whereas in 10 Member States, risk management is functionally or institutionally separate from risk assessment and risk communication. No single ideal model for others to follow for the organization of a food safety authority was observed; however, revised NFSS, either in EU member states or at the EU central level, may be more effective from the previous arrangements, because they provide central supervision, give priority to food control programs, and maintain comprehensive risk analysis as part of their activities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document