Limitations, Defences, and Genuine Use

European Trade Mark Law ◽

10.1093/oso/9780199680443.003.0008 ◽

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’.

Download Full-text

39. Revocation

Intellectual Property Law ◽

10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0039 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

L. Bently ◽

B. Sherman ◽

D. Gangjee ◽

P. Johnson

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Trade Mark ◽

The European Union ◽

Trade Marks ◽

The Public ◽

Goods And Services ◽

The Common

This chapter examines revocation as a reason for removing a mark from the register and the grounds for revocation as set out in section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and Article 57 of the European Union Trade Marks Regulation. It begins by discussing the first ground on which a mark may be revoked: ‘non-use’ (the trade mark has not been used for five years following the date of completion of the registration). It considers the relevant period of non-use and proper reasons for non-use, along with the issue of rewriting the specification with respect to goods and services. The chapter then looks at the second ground for the revocation of trade marks: if the mark has become the ‘common name in the trade’ (that is, generic marks). The final reason for revocation is if the mark has been used in a way that misleads the public (that is, deception is involved).

Download Full-text

Technische Universitaät Darmstadt v. Eugen Ulmer KG

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.5305/amerjintelaw.109.1.0161 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 109 (1) ◽

pp. 161-167

Author(s):

Anne-Marie Carstens

Keyword(s):

Intellectual Property Rights ◽

Public Interest ◽

The United States ◽

Fair Use ◽

The European Union ◽

The Public ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Attention ◽

International Obligations ◽

Mass Digitization

In Technische Universität Darmstadt v. Eugen Ulmer KG, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ or Court) addressed several important copyright issues stemming from a practice that continues to confound many legal practitioners and adjudicators: the mass digitization of library collections. The judgment adds to an emerging body of jurisprudence decided in the context of a trend toward greater digitization that could ultimately facilitate the development of a global, digital library. To date, the jurisprudence has largely been formed by cases challenging mass digitization that are percolating through the United States courts and have attracted international attention and criticism. The ECJ decision thus provides an important point of reference for evaluating how different jurisdictions balance the rights of authors against the public interest, as served by relevant fair use exceptions consistent with their international obligations under traditional copyright treaties, the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty, and the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) applicable to all WTO member states.

Download Full-text

Acquisition Of Rights

European Trade Mark Law ◽

10.1093/oso/9780199680443.003.0006 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

37. Absolute grounds for refusal

Intellectual Property Law ◽

10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0037 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

L. Bently ◽

B. Sherman ◽

D. Gangjee ◽

P. Johnson

Keyword(s):

Public Policy ◽

Trade Mark ◽

The European Union ◽

Bad Faith ◽

Trade Marks ◽

The Public ◽

The Absolute ◽

Definition Of ◽

Absolute Grounds For Refusal ◽

Trade Mark Registration

This chapter examines the ‘absolute’ grounds for refusing to register a trade mark as set out in section 3 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, Article 3 of the Trade Marks Directive, and Article 7 of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR). It first looks at the reasons for denying an application for trade mark registration before analysing the absolute grounds for refusal, which can be grouped into three general categories: whether the sign falls within the statutory definition of a trade mark found in sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a) and (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994; whether trade marks are non-distinctive, descriptive, and generic; and whether trade marks are contrary to public policy or morality, likely to deceive the public, prohibited by law, or if the application was made in bad faith. Provisions for specially protected emblems are also considered.

Download Full-text

Comparison of COVID-19 Health Risks With Other Viral Occupational Hazards

International Journal of Health Services ◽

10.1177/0020731420946590 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 51 (1) ◽

pp. 37-49 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jean-Pierre Unger

Keyword(s):

Trade Unions ◽

Case Fatality ◽

Occupational Hazards ◽

The European Union ◽

The Public ◽

Group 4 ◽

Effective Prophylaxis ◽

European Trade ◽

Group 3

The European Commission periodically classifies viruses on their occupational hazards to define the level of protection that workers are entitled to claim. Viruses belonging to Groups 3 and 4 can cause severe human disease and hazard to workers, as well as a spreading risk to the community. However, there is no effective prophylaxis or treatment available for Group 4 viruses. European trade unions and the Commission are negotiating the classification of the COVID-19 virus along these 2 categories. This article weighs the reasons to classify it in Group 3 or 4 while comparing its risks to those of the most significant viruses classified in these 2 categories. COVID-19 characteristics justify its classification in Group 4. Contaminated workers in contact with the public play an important role in disseminating the virus. In hospitals and nursing homes, they increase the overall case fatality rate. By strongly protecting these workers and professionals, the European Union would not only improve health in work environments, but also activate a mechanism key to reducing the COVID-19 burden in the general population. Admittedly, the availability of a new vaccine or treatment would change this conclusion, which was reached in the middle of the first pandemic.

Download Full-text

On the Legitimacy of National Interests of Sponsoring States: A Deep Sea Mining Conundrum

The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law ◽

10.1163/15718085-bja10011 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-18

Author(s):

Klaas Willaert

Keyword(s):

Deep Sea ◽

Mineral Resources ◽

Decisive Role ◽

Legal Framework ◽

National Interests ◽

The Public ◽

Domestic Legislation ◽

National Jurisdiction ◽

The Common ◽

International Instruments

Abstract Beyond national jurisdiction, the deep seabed and its mineral resources are designated as the ‘common heritage of mankind’. Nevertheless, the governing legal framework does not only consist of international instruments, as domestic legislation issued by sponsoring States also plays a decisive role. The legitimacy of certain national provisions can be questioned though, taking into account the duty to carry out activities in the Area for the benefit of mankind as a whole. For instance, can a sponsoring state demand that the proposed mining activities are in the public interest of the State? Are they allowed to generate revenue by introducing a recovery fee or other taxes? Should developing States enjoy more leeway, given the particular consideration for their interests and needs in the Law of the Sea Convention? This article analyses to what extent creeping national interests in domestic legislation on deep sea mining are in accordance with international law.

Download Full-text

6. Trade Marks I

Intellectual Property Law: ◽

10.1093/he/9780198743545.003.0006 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Tanya Aplin ◽

Jennifer Davis

Keyword(s):

Trade Mark ◽

The European Union ◽

Trade Marks ◽

The Public ◽

The Subject ◽

Substantive Law ◽

The Relationship ◽

Absolute Grounds For Refusal ◽

Trade Mark Registration ◽

Domestic Case

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter examines the main justifications for the protection of registered trade marks. It considers the substantive law relating to the subject matter of registration as set out in the Trade Marks Directive (2016) and its predecessor. It looks at which signs will be registered as well as the absolute grounds for refusal of registration and at the Court of Justice of the European Union and domestic case law interpreting these grounds. The practicalities of the trade mark registration process both domestically and internationally are also considered. The chapter then looks at the relationship between registered marks and the public domain.

Download Full-text

28. Tortious protection of intellectual property rights

Holyoak and Torremans Intellectual Property Law ◽

10.1093/he/9780198836452.003.0028 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 515-550

Author(s):

Paul Torremans

Keyword(s):

Intellectual Property ◽

Property Rights ◽

Intellectual Property Rights ◽

Common Law ◽

Trade Mark ◽

Trade Marks ◽

Passing Off ◽

Trade Mark Law ◽

The Common ◽

The Law

This chapter discusses the ways in which the common law, in the form of the law of tort, creates rights of action. It focuses on the torts of passing off and malicious falsehood, although attention is also paid to the ways in which defamation can assist. These rights are supplementary, and complementary, to the statutory formal rights. In particular, trade mark law and passing off closely overlap, although s. 2(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 preserves passing off as a separate cause of action.

Download Full-text

Introduction

10.1093/hepl/9780199570829.003.0001 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Desmond Dinan

Keyword(s):

World War Ii ◽

Eu Enlargement ◽

Political Support ◽

Economic And Monetary Union ◽

The European Union ◽

World War ◽

The Public ◽

Wide Range ◽

The Common ◽

The Eu

This edition examines the origins and evolution of the European Union and the development of European integration from the immediate post-World War II period, when politicians and the public seemed willing to share national sovereignty for the sake of greater security, to the shock of the eurozone crisis nearly seventy years later, when the EU lacked public and political support. Far from existing in isolation, the volume shows that the European Community and, later, the EU was inextricably linked with broader regional and international developments throughout that time. It features contributions from leading scholars of the EU, who discuss a wide range of issues including the common agricultural policy (CAP), the single market programme, the economic and monetary union (EMU), and EU enlargement.

Download Full-text