Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:42:43.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. TRADE MARKS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2008

Catherine Seville
Catherine Seville
Affiliation:
Newnham College, May 2008
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Current Developments: European Union Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 955 - 967
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For current membership of the Madrid Union see: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/treaties/en/documents/pdf/madrid_marks.pdf

2 The admirable OHIM web site provides access to all the decisions of the Boards of Appeal, Opposition and Cancellation Divisions, and links to decisions of the CFI and ECJ: http://oami.europa.eu/en/mark/default.htm

3 Case C-273/00 Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent-und Markenamt [2002] ECR I-11737 (paras 46–55).

4 Communication No 06/03 of the President of the Office of 10 November 2003. The Communication acknowledges that such an indication may not always be possible, for example because the colour or shade of colour does not exist in the coding system. See also Regulation 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark (CTMIR), Rule 3(5). The approach follows the guidance given in Case C-104/01, Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau [2003] ECR I-3793 (paras 26–38).

5 R 120/2001-2 Eli Lilly and Company/The Taste of Artificial Strawberry Flavour [2004] ETMR 4.

6 T-305/04 Eden v OHIM [2006] ETMR 14. See also R 186/2000-4 Institut Pour la Protection des Fragrances (IPF)'s Application [2005] ETMR 42.

7 The industry has had only very limited success in seeking copyright protection for perfume, and it seems unlikely that one isolated decision by the Dutch Supreme Court will provoke Community-wide change in that direction. See Catherine Seville, ‘Copyright in Perfumes: Smelling a Rat’ (2007) 66 Cambridge Law Journal 49–52.

8 L'Oreal v Bellure [2007] EWCA Civ 968.

9 R 781/1999-4 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion Corporation's Application [2004] ETMR 34 (paras 23–28).

10 R 708/2006-4 Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc v OHIM (27 September 2007).

11 OHIM accepted a second application for the Tarzan yell, supported by musical notation, because it complied with the required formalities and the ‘yell’ which it described was held to be distinctive. See Press Release (5 November 2007) ‘Tarzan's trade mark yell’ CP/07/01.

12 CTMIR, Rule 3(6); Decision No EX-05-3 of the President of the Office of 10 October 2005. A third application for the Tarzan yell, combining a sonogram with an MP3 sound file is currently going through the registration process. See Press Release (5 November 2007) ‘Tarzan's trade mark yell’ CP/07/01.

13 R 46/1998-2 Giacomelli Sport SpA's Application [2000] ETMR 277.

14 C-418/02, Praktiker Bau- und Heimwerkermärkte [2005] ECR I-5873; [2005] ETMR 88.

15 Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks [1989] OJ L 040/1 (‘TMD’), Art. 3(1)(b); Regulation 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark [1994] OJ L 11/1 (‘CTMR’), Art. 7(1)(b).

16 Joined Cases C-53/01-C-55/0, Linde AG, Winward Industries, Rado Uhren AG [2003] ECR I-3161; [2003] ETMR 78 (para 47).

17 Case C-363/99, Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau [2004] ECR I-1619; [2004] ETMR 57 (para 34).

18 Case C-329/02 P, SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v OHIM [2004] ECR I-8317; [2005] ETMR 20 (para 26).

19 Joined Cases C-53/01-C-55/0, Linde AG, Winward Industries, Rado Uhren AG [2003] ECR I-3161; [2003] ETMR 78; [2003] RPC 45 (para 42).

20 Case C-104/01, Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau [2003] ECR I-3793; [2003] ETMR 63 (paras 54–55 & 66–67). See also Case C-447/02 P, KWS Saat AG v OHIM [2004] ECR I-10107; [2005] ETMR 86.

21 Case C-49/02, Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH. (para. 42) [2004] ECR I-6129; [2004] ETMR 99.

22 Joined cases C-456/01 P and C-457/01 P, Henkel v OHIM [2004] ECR I-5089; [2005] ETMR 44 (para. 39). See also joined cases C-468/01 P to C-472/01 P, Procter & Gamble v OHIM [2004] ECR I-5141, [2004] ETMR 88; Case C-286/04 P, Eurocermex v OHIM [2005] ECR I-5797; [2005] ETMR 95; Case C-144/06 P, Henkel v OHIM (4 October 2007).

23 Case T-324/01, Axion SA v OHIM [2003] ECR II-1897, [2005] ETMR 72 (cigar and ingot shapes for chocolate not substantially different from a basic shape for these products commonly used in the trade); Case T-360/03, Frischpack v OHIM [2004] ECR II-4097, [2005] ETMR 48 (flat box for cheese ‘only a slight and unremarkable variation on the typical shape’); Case T-15/05, De Waele v OHIM [2006] ECR 1511; Case T-140/06, Philip Morris Products v OHIM (12 September 2007) (three-dimensional shape of a packet of cigarettes lacked distinctive character because it differed only slightly from ‘standard’ cigarette packets). But cf Case T-128/01, DaimlerChrysler Corp v OHIM [2003] ECR II-701, where the CFI allowed registration of the shape of a vehicle grille, noting that grilles ‘have become an essential part of the look of vehicles and a means of differentiating between existing models on the market made by the various manufacturers’ (para 42). See also Case T-305/02, Nestlé Waters France v OHIM [2003] ECR II-5207 (water bottle design not commonplace when considered as a whole); Case T-460/05, Bang & Olufsen A/S v OHIM (10 October 2007) (shape of loudspeaker, ‘a vertical, pencil-shaped column, with a long, rectangular panel attached to one side’, held to be ‘truly specific’, so ‘cannot be considered to be altogether common’ (paras 39–40).

24 Case C-173/04, Deutsche SiSi-Werke v OHIM [2006] ECR I-551; [2006] ETMR 41 (paras 60–63).

25 Case C-404/02, Nichols Plc v Registrar of Trade Marks [2004] ECR I-8499; [2005] ETMR 21.

26 Case C-64/02 P, OHIM v Erpo Mobelwerk [2004] ECR I-10031; [2005] ETMR 58.

27 Case T-130/01 Sykes Enterprises Inc v OHIM [2002] ECR II-5179; [2003] ETMR 57. See also Case T-216/02 Fieldturf Inc v OHIM [2004] ECR II-1023; [2004] ETMR 86 (LOOKS LIKE GRASS … FEELS LIKE GRASS … PLAYS LIKE GRASS); Case T-122/01, Best Buy Concepts Inc v OHIM [2003] ECR II-2235; [2004] ETMR 19; Case T-320/03 Citicorp v OHIM [2005] ECR II-3411 (LIVE RICHLY for financial services).

28 TMD, Art 3(1)(c); CTMR, Art 7(1)(c).

29 Case C-383/99 P, Proctor & Gamble Co v OHIM [2001] ECR I-6251; [2002] ETMR 3.

30 Case C-363/99, Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (POSTKANTOOR) [2004] ETMR 57. Case C-265/00, Campina Melkunie BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau [2004] ECR I-1699 (BIOMILD). Both discussed below.

31 Case C-108/97, Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH v Boots- und Segelzubehor Walter Huber [1999] ECR I-2779; [1999] ETMR 585 (para 25). Joined Cases C-53/01-C-55/0, Linde AG, Winward Industries, Rado Uhren AG [2003] ECR I-3161; [2003] ETMR 78; [2003] RPC 45 (para 73).

32 Case C-191/01, P OHIM v Wm Wrigley Jr Co [2003] ECR I-12447; [2004] ETMR 9.

33 Case C-265/00, Campina Melkunie BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau [2004] ECR I-1699; [2004] ETMR 58 (para. 41). See also Case C-363/99, Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (POSTKANTOOR) [2004] ETMR 57; [2005] 2 CMLR 10.

34 Case C-191/01 P, OHIM v Wm Wrigley Jr Co [2003] ECR I-12447; [2004] ETMR 9. See also Case T-183/03 Applied Molecular Evolution Inc v OHIM [2004] ECR II-3113; [2005] ETMR 60 (APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION descriptive of the services claimed, given the highly specialized relevant public), but cp. Case C-273/05 P, OHIM v Celltech R&D Ltd (19 April 2007) (CELLTECH, when considered as a whole, even understood as meaning ‘cell technology’, not shown to be descriptive of the relevant goods and services). Joined Cases T-178/03 and 179/03, CeWe Color v OHIM [2005] ECR II-3105; [2006] ETMR 34 (DigiFilmMaker and DigiFilm). Case T-289/02 Telepharmacy Solutions Inc v OHIM [2004] ECR II-2851; [2006] ETMR 10. Case T-230/05, Golf USA, Inc v OHIM (6 March 2007); T-461/04, Imagination Technologies Ltd v OHIM [2008] ETMR 10 (PURE DIGITAL descriptive of electronic goods).

35 Case C-421/04, Matratzen Concord AG v Hukla Germany SA [2006] ECR I-2303; [2006] ETMR 48.

36 TMD, Art 3(1)(d); CTMR, Art 7(1)(d).

37 Case C-517/99, Merz & Krell v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt [2001] ECR I-6959; [2002] ETMR 21.

38 Case C-192/03 P, Alcon Inc v OHIM [2004] ECR I-8993; [2005] ETMR 69. See also Case T-322/03, Telefon & Buch Verlagsgesellschaft v OHIM [2006] ECR II-835 (WEISSE SEITEN (‘white pages’) customary for private telephone directories).

39 TMD, Art 3(3); CTMR, Art 7(3).

40 Case C-353/03, Société des Produits Nestlé v Mars UK [2005] ECR I-6135; [2005] ETMR 96 (para 27).

41 Case T-91/99, Ford Motor Co v OHIM [2000] ECR II-1925; [2000] ETMR 554 (paras 23–27). See also Case C-108/05, Bovemij Verzekeringen NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau [2007] ETMR 29.

42 See Case T-141/06, Glaverbel v OHIM (12 September 2007).

43 TMD, Art 3(1)(e); CTMR, Art 7(1)(e).

44 Case C-218/01, Henkel v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt [2004] ECR 1725; [2005] ETMR 45.

45 Case C-299/99, Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products [2002] ECR I-5475; [2002] ETMR 81.

46 R 772/2001-1 Automobili Lamborghini Holding v OHIM [2005] ETMR 43.

47 TMD, Art. 3(1)(f); CMTR, Art 7(1)(f).

48 R 111/2002-4 Dick Lexic Limited v OHIM (25 March 2003). Compare R 495/2005-G Screw You v OHIM [2007] ETMR 7.

49 ETA: OHIM Refused Trade Marks (7 September 2004). BIN LADEN (thus, and in Arabic characters): R 176/2004-2 Falcon Sporting Goods v OHIM (29 September 2004).

50 TMD, Art. 3(1)(g); CMTR, Art. 7(1)(g).

51 Case C-259/04, Elizabeth Emanuel v Continental Shelf 128 Ltd [2006] ECR 3089; [2006] ETMR 56.

52 TMD Art 4(1)(a); CTMR Art 8(1)(a).

53 Case C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v Klijsen Handel BV [1999] ECR I-3819 (LLOYD and LOINT'S for identical goods). Case T-133/05 Meric v OHIM (7 Sept 2006) (PAM-PIM'S BABY-PROP confusingly similar to PAM-PAM for near-identical goods).

54 Case T-99/01, Mystery Drinks GmbH v OHIM [2003] ECR II-43; [2004] ETMR 18.

55 Case T-57/03, Société Provençale d'Achat et de Gestion (SPAG) SA v OHIM [2005] ECR 287; [2005] ETMR 116.

56 Case T-292/01, Phillips Van Heusen Corp v OHIM [2003] ECR II-4335; [2004] ETMR 60. Conceptual differences were important here, also.

57 Case T-350/04, Bitburger Brauerei Th Simon GmbH v OHIM (19 October 2006).

58 Case T-129/01, Jose Alejandro SL v OHIM [2003] ECR II-2251; [2004] ETMR 15.

59 Case C-214/05, Sergio Rossi SpA v OHIM (18 July 2006). See also Case T-224/01 Durferrit GmbH v OHIM [2003] ECR 1589; [2004] ETMR 32 (NUTRIDE and TUFFTRIDE dissimilar); Case T-31/01, Éditions Albert René v OHIM [2003] ECR II-4625, [2004] ETMR 62 (ASTERIX and STARIX dissimilar).

60 Case T-110/01, Vedial SA v OHIM [2002] ECR II-5275; [2004] ETMR 102 (para 51).

61 Case T-6/01, Matratzen Concord GmbH v OHIM [2002] ECR II-4335; [2003] ETMR 31 (para. 33); Case T-31/03, Grupo Sada v OHIM (11 May 2005) (para. 49); Case T-214/04, Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd v OHIM [2006] ECR II-239; [2006] ETMR 59 (para. 39).

62 Case T-35/04, Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia Avee v OHIM (15 March 2006) [2006] ECR II-785. See also Joined Cases T-183/02 and T-184/02, El Corte Ingles, SA v OHIM [2004] ECR II-965; [2004] ETMR 103 (MUNDICOLOR/MUNDICOR). The ECJ has stressed that a global assessment of the similarity between two marks ‘means more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark’. The comparison must be made by examining each of the marks as a whole: Case C-334/05 P, OHIM v Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas (12 June 2007). See also Case C-193/06 P, Société des Produits Nestlé SA v OHIM, Quick restaurants SA (20 September 2007).

63 Case C-361/04 P, Ruiz-Picasso v OHIM [2006] ECR 643; [2006] ETMR 29. See also Case T-149/06, Castellani SpA v OHIM [2008] ETMR 22; Case T-112/06, Inter-Ikea Systems v OHIM (16 January 2008).

64 Case C-120/04, Medion AG v Thomson Multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH [2005] ECR 8551. See also Case T-434/05, Gateway, Inc. v OHIM (27 November 2007). There appears to be some tension with the approach to compound (word and figurative) marks, discussed above: Case T-6/01, Matratzen Concord GmbH v OHIM [2002] ECR II-4335 (para. 33).

65 Case C-171/06 P, T.I.M.E. v OHIM [2007] ETMR 38.

66 Case C-251/95, Sabel BV v Puma AG [1997] ECR 6191; [1998] ETMR 1 (para. 23).

67 Case C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v Klijsen Handel BV [1999] ECR I-3819 (para. 26).

68 Case C-361/04, Ruiz-Picasso v OHIM [2006] ECR 643; [2006] ETMR 29 (para 23).

69 Case C-145/05, Levi Strauss & Co v Casucci SpA [2006] ECR I-3703; [2006] ETMR 71 (para. 18).

70 CTMR, Art. 8(5); TMD, Art. 4(3).

71 Case T-67/04, Monopole SpA v OHIM [2005] ECR 1825; [2005] ETMR 109 ((para. 48). See also Case T-47/06, Antartica Srl v OHIM, The Nasdaq Stock Market Inc. [2007] ETMR 109 where the proprietor of NASDAQ for financial services successfully opposed the use of a very similar sign for sports equipment.

72 CTMR, Art. 9; TMD, Art. 4.

73 Case C-2/00, Hölterhoff v Freiesleben [2002] ECR 4187; [2002] ETMR 79.

74 Case C-206/01, Arsenal Football Club Plc v Reed [2002] ECR 10,273; [2003] ETMR 19.

75 Case C-48/05, Adam Opel AG v Autec AG [2007] ETMR 35. Following the ECJ's ruling, the Nuremburg District Court dismissed the car manufacturer's trade mark infringement complaint.

76 CTMR, Art 12(c); TMD, Art 6(1)(c).

77 Case C-228/03, Gillette Co v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy [2005] ECR I-2337; [2005] ETMR 67. Case C-63/97, Bayerische Motorenwerke AG v Deenik [1999] ECR I-905, [1999] ETMR 339.

78 Joined Cases C-427, 429 & 436/93, Bristol-Myers Squibb & Others v Paranova A/S [1996] ECR I-3457.

79 Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim KG v Swingward Ltd (26 April 2007).