Trade mark law
Senftleben, M.
Robustness Check: Evaluating and Strengthening Artistic Use Defences in EU Trademark Law Journal Article
In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 567-603, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {Robustness Check: Evaluating and Strengthening Artistic Use Defences in EU Trademark Law},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01182-x},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-12},
urldate = {2022-04-12},
journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },
volume = {53},
number = {4},
pages = {567-603},
abstract = {The 2015 EU trademark law reform introduced a peculiar rule for reconciling trademark rights with freedom of artistic expression. According to Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD, artistic use can be deemed fair as long as the artist ensures compliance with “honest practices in industrial and commercial matters”. The honest practices proviso forges a link with the provisions on limitations of trademark rights. Article 14(1) EUTMR and Art. 14(1) TMD exempt from the control of trademark proprietors several types of use that can allow for artistic use. All these limitations, however, apply only when the use satisfies the test of honest practices. Confirming the obligation to comply with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters, the fairness rule of Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD turns out to be a double-edged sword. Instead of readily immunizing artistic use against trademark claims, it obliges artists to rely on limitations of trademark rights and furnish corresponding proof. Moreover, artists are expected to align their artistic activity with behavioural standards in the field of industry and commerce \textendash a realm that is alien to the artistic community. Evidently, this approach endangers artistic autonomy. To avoid detrimental effects on artistic expression, it is advisable to strengthen the position of artists and develop a legal solution that resembles the measures taken in Art. 9(3)(f) EUTMR and Art. 10(3)(f) TMD with regard to freedom of commercial expression. Drawing inspiration from cultural sciences and case law on both sides of the Atlantic, the analysis explores avenues for achieving this goal.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The 2015 EU trademark law reform introduced a peculiar rule for reconciling trademark rights with freedom of artistic expression. According to Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD, artistic use can be deemed fair as long as the artist ensures compliance with “honest practices in industrial and commercial matters”. The honest practices proviso forges a link with the provisions on limitations of trademark rights. Article 14(1) EUTMR and Art. 14(1) TMD exempt from the control of trademark proprietors several types of use that can allow for artistic use. All these limitations, however, apply only when the use satisfies the test of honest practices. Confirming the obligation to comply with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters, the fairness rule of Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD turns out to be a double-edged sword. Instead of readily immunizing artistic use against trademark claims, it obliges artists to rely on limitations of trademark rights and furnish corresponding proof. Moreover, artists are expected to align their artistic activity with behavioural standards in the field of industry and commerce – a realm that is alien to the artistic community. Evidently, this approach endangers artistic autonomy. To avoid detrimental effects on artistic expression, it is advisable to strengthen the position of artists and develop a legal solution that resembles the measures taken in Art. 9(3)(f) EUTMR and Art. 10(3)(f) TMD with regard to freedom of commercial expression. Drawing inspiration from cultural sciences and case law on both sides of the Atlantic, the analysis explores avenues for achieving this goal.
Senftleben, M.
In: GRUR International, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 3-17, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {No Trademark Protection for Artworks in the Public Domain \textendash A Practical Guide to the Application of Public Order and Morality as Grounds for Refusal},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/71/1/3/6349172
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/grurint_2022_1.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikab107},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-01-11},
journal = {GRUR International},
volume = {71},
number = {1},
pages = {3-17},
abstract = {With its 2017 landmark decision in Vigeland, the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States (EFTA Court) has paved the way for the invocation of public order and morality as grounds for refusal when trademark protection is sought for cultural expressions in the public domain. Dealing with an attempt to register artworks of the famous Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland as trademarks, the EFTA Court took this step to safeguard the public domain status of literary and artistic works after the expiry of copyright, shield cultural creations against ‘commercial greed’ and ensure the freedom of the arts.1 Trademark examiners and judges seeking to follow in the footsteps of the EFTA Court, however, may find it difficult to operationalize the Vigeland criteria and put corresponding arguments for refusal into practice. Against this background, the following analysis provides guidelines for the practical application of public order and morality arguments in cultural heritage cases. It describes problems arising from the grant of trademark rights in cultural public domain material (Section I) and the traditional reluctance of trademark offices and courts to rely on public order and morality considerations in this context (Section II). After this statement of the problem, the criteria following from the Vigeland decision will be introduced (Section III) before we explore the practical implementation of the EFTA Court’s morality (Section IV) and public order (Section V) arguments in more detail. The final Section VI summarizes the results of the analysis.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
With its 2017 landmark decision in Vigeland, the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States (EFTA Court) has paved the way for the invocation of public order and morality as grounds for refusal when trademark protection is sought for cultural expressions in the public domain. Dealing with an attempt to register artworks of the famous Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland as trademarks, the EFTA Court took this step to safeguard the public domain status of literary and artistic works after the expiry of copyright, shield cultural creations against ‘commercial greed’ and ensure the freedom of the arts.1 Trademark examiners and judges seeking to follow in the footsteps of the EFTA Court, however, may find it difficult to operationalize the Vigeland criteria and put corresponding arguments for refusal into practice. Against this background, the following analysis provides guidelines for the practical application of public order and morality arguments in cultural heritage cases. It describes problems arising from the grant of trademark rights in cultural public domain material (Section I) and the traditional reluctance of trademark offices and courts to rely on public order and morality considerations in this context (Section II). After this statement of the problem, the criteria following from the Vigeland decision will be introduced (Section III) before we explore the practical implementation of the EFTA Court’s morality (Section IV) and public order (Section V) arguments in more detail. The final Section VI summarizes the results of the analysis.
Senftleben, M.
Sacrificing the Gods on the Altar of Sports: The Redefinition of Cultural Symbols in the Sports Sector Book Chapter
In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 233-247, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.
@inbook{nokey,
title = {Sacrificing the Gods on the Altar of Sports: The Redefinition of Cultural Symbols in the Sports Sector},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
isbn = {9789403537337},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-30},
booktitle = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},
pages = {233-247},
publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Senftleben, M.; Horen, F. van
The Siren Song of the Subtle Copycat - Revisiting Trademark Law with Insights from Consumer Research Journal Article
In: The Trademark Reporter, vol. 111, no. 4, pp. 739-777, 2021.
@article{Senftleben2021b,
title = {The Siren Song of the Subtle Copycat - Revisiting Trademark Law with Insights from Consumer Research},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Horen, F. van},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3922568
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/TheTrademarkReporter_2021_4.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-10-01},
journal = {The Trademark Reporter},
volume = {111},
number = {4},
pages = {739-777},
abstract = {The architecture of trademark protection systems rests on the assumption that brand imitation strategies are particularly harmful when they seek to achieve a high level of similarity by copying specific trademarked features of the original brand. Marketing research, however, shows that this assumption is doubtful. Subtle, theme-based imitation strategies \textendash aiming at a modest degree of similarity \textendash may allow copycats to garner greater profits and manipulate consumers’ purchasing decisions. Like an enchanting siren song, they may lure customers away from the original products of brand owners. Against this background, the paper discusses the question whether trademark law should be recalibrated.
To lay groundwork for this discussion, the analysis outlines central functions of trademarks in today’s market economy before describing, on the basis of EU trademark law, the traditional approach to copycat strategies from a marketing and legal perspective. Introducing insights from recent marketing research, the paper explains why subtle, theme-based strategies may be more harmful than blatant, feature-based copying. The further examination places this insight in a legal context. Contrasting the empirical findings of marketing research with traditional assessment schemes in EU trademark law, it becomes apparent that there is a remarkable mismatch between legal theory and market reality. Current trademark provisions are not aligned with “real life” consumer perception. As a result, copycats with a subtle imitation strategy remain under the radar of applicable infringement tests. This dilemma is taken as a starting point to discuss the need for reforms in trademark law.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The architecture of trademark protection systems rests on the assumption that brand imitation strategies are particularly harmful when they seek to achieve a high level of similarity by copying specific trademarked features of the original brand. Marketing research, however, shows that this assumption is doubtful. Subtle, theme-based imitation strategies – aiming at a modest degree of similarity – may allow copycats to garner greater profits and manipulate consumers’ purchasing decisions. Like an enchanting siren song, they may lure customers away from the original products of brand owners. Against this background, the paper discusses the question whether trademark law should be recalibrated.
To lay groundwork for this discussion, the analysis outlines central functions of trademarks in today’s market economy before describing, on the basis of EU trademark law, the traditional approach to copycat strategies from a marketing and legal perspective. Introducing insights from recent marketing research, the paper explains why subtle, theme-based strategies may be more harmful than blatant, feature-based copying. The further examination places this insight in a legal context. Contrasting the empirical findings of marketing research with traditional assessment schemes in EU trademark law, it becomes apparent that there is a remarkable mismatch between legal theory and market reality. Current trademark provisions are not aligned with “real life” consumer perception. As a result, copycats with a subtle imitation strategy remain under the radar of applicable infringement tests. This dilemma is taken as a starting point to discuss the need for reforms in trademark law.
To lay groundwork for this discussion, the analysis outlines central functions of trademarks in today’s market economy before describing, on the basis of EU trademark law, the traditional approach to copycat strategies from a marketing and legal perspective. Introducing insights from recent marketing research, the paper explains why subtle, theme-based strategies may be more harmful than blatant, feature-based copying. The further examination places this insight in a legal context. Contrasting the empirical findings of marketing research with traditional assessment schemes in EU trademark law, it becomes apparent that there is a remarkable mismatch between legal theory and market reality. Current trademark provisions are not aligned with “real life” consumer perception. As a result, copycats with a subtle imitation strategy remain under the radar of applicable infringement tests. This dilemma is taken as a starting point to discuss the need for reforms in trademark law.
Senftleben, M.
Signs Eligible for Trademark Protection - Dysfunctional Incentives and a Functionality Dilemma in the EU Book Chapter
In: pp. 209-225, 2020, (Chapter in: Cambridge Handbook on International and Comparative Trademark Law, I. Calboli & J.C. Ginsburg (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020.).
@inbook{Senftleben2020f,
title = {Signs Eligible for Trademark Protection - Dysfunctional Incentives and a Functionality Dilemma in the EU},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717753
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Signs_Eligible_for_Trademark_Protection.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.014},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-26},
pages = {209-225},
abstract = {In the European Union (EU), the criteria for determining a sign’s eligibility for trademark protection are harmonized to a large extent. On the one hand, the trademark legislation and office practices in EU Member States have to keep within the harmonized legal framework set forth in the EU Trade Mark Directive (TMD). On the other hand, the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provides for a set of eligibility criteria that apply to European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) with equal effect throughout the EU territory. As the rules in the Regulation are in line with those in the Directive, the two legislative instruments constitute a robust body of harmonized norms informing the decision on the registration of a sign as a trademark. The harmonizing effect is enhanced by the fact that national courts have to refer questions relating to the application and interpretation of eligibility criteria to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks.
The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.},
note = {Chapter in: Cambridge Handbook on International and Comparative Trademark Law, I. Calboli \& J.C. Ginsburg (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
In the European Union (EU), the criteria for determining a sign’s eligibility for trademark protection are harmonized to a large extent. On the one hand, the trademark legislation and office practices in EU Member States have to keep within the harmonized legal framework set forth in the EU Trade Mark Directive (TMD). On the other hand, the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provides for a set of eligibility criteria that apply to European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) with equal effect throughout the EU territory. As the rules in the Regulation are in line with those in the Directive, the two legislative instruments constitute a robust body of harmonized norms informing the decision on the registration of a sign as a trademark. The harmonizing effect is enhanced by the fact that national courts have to refer questions relating to the application and interpretation of eligibility criteria to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks.
The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.
As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks.
The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.
Senftleben, M.
Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement - Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions? Book Chapter
In: pp. 381-403, 2020, (Chapter in: Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability, G.F. Frosio (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.).
@inbook{Senftleben2020g,
title = {Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement - Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions?},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Intermediary_Liability_and_Trade_Mark_Infringement.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3736919
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198837138},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-26},
pages = {381-403},
abstract = {The erosion of the safe harbour for hosting in the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) leads to a remarkable climate change in the field of EU copyright law and the civil law jurisdictions of continental EU Member States. Inevitably, it raises the question of potential repercussions on the safe harbour for hosting and filtering standards in trademark cases. Even though online marketplaces are explicitly exempted from the new copyright rules and the CDSM Directive is not intended to neutralize the safe harbour for hosting in trademark cases, the adoption of a more restrictive approach in copyright law may quicken the appetite of trademark proprietors for similar measures in trademark law.
The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products.
As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided.},
note = {Chapter in: Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability, G.F. Frosio (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
The erosion of the safe harbour for hosting in the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) leads to a remarkable climate change in the field of EU copyright law and the civil law jurisdictions of continental EU Member States. Inevitably, it raises the question of potential repercussions on the safe harbour for hosting and filtering standards in trademark cases. Even though online marketplaces are explicitly exempted from the new copyright rules and the CDSM Directive is not intended to neutralize the safe harbour for hosting in trademark cases, the adoption of a more restrictive approach in copyright law may quicken the appetite of trademark proprietors for similar measures in trademark law.
The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products.
As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided.
The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products.
As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided.
Senftleben, M.
The Copyright/Trademark Interface: How the Expansion of Trademark Protection Is Stifling Cultural Creativity Book
Kluwer Law International, 2020, ISBN: 9789403523705.
@book{nokey,
title = {The Copyright/Trademark Interface: How the Expansion of Trademark Protection Is Stifling Cultural Creativity},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
isbn = {9789403523705},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-12},
number = {44},
publisher = {Kluwer Law International},
series = {Information Law Series},
abstract = {The Copyright/Trademark Interface is an exceptional analysis of the clash between culture and commerce, and the imbalances caused by protection overlaps arising from cumulative copyright and trademark protection. This book highlights the corrosive effect of indefinitely renewable trademark rights. It underscores the necessity to safeguard central preconditions for the proper functioning of the copyright system in society at large: the freedom to use pre-existing works as reference points for the artistic discourse and building blocks for new creations need to ensure the constant enrichment of the public domain. The registration of cultural icons as trademarks has become a standard protection strategy in contemporary cultural productions. It plays an augmented role in the area of cultural heritage. Attempts to register and ‘evergreen’ the protection of cultural signs, ranging from ‘Mickey Mouse’ to the ‘Mona Lisa’, are no longer unusual. This phenomenon, which is characterized by the EFTA Court as trademark registrations and is triggered by ‘commercial greed’, has become typical of an era where trademark law is employed strategically to restrain or eliminate cultural symbols from the public domain.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
The Copyright/Trademark Interface is an exceptional analysis of the clash between culture and commerce, and the imbalances caused by protection overlaps arising from cumulative copyright and trademark protection. This book highlights the corrosive effect of indefinitely renewable trademark rights. It underscores the necessity to safeguard central preconditions for the proper functioning of the copyright system in society at large: the freedom to use pre-existing works as reference points for the artistic discourse and building blocks for new creations need to ensure the constant enrichment of the public domain. The registration of cultural icons as trademarks has become a standard protection strategy in contemporary cultural productions. It plays an augmented role in the area of cultural heritage. Attempts to register and ‘evergreen’ the protection of cultural signs, ranging from ‘Mickey Mouse’ to the ‘Mona Lisa’, are no longer unusual. This phenomenon, which is characterized by the EFTA Court as trademark registrations and is triggered by ‘commercial greed’, has become typical of an era where trademark law is employed strategically to restrain or eliminate cultural symbols from the public domain.
Stapel, S.
Preliminary ruling to the CJEU on geographical boundaries of UCD novelty assessment Journal Article
In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 240-241, 2020, (Current Intelligence).
@article{Stapel2020,
title = {Preliminary ruling to the CJEU on geographical boundaries of UCD novelty assessment},
author = {Stapel, S.},
url = {https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa032},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa032},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-24},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice},
volume = {15},
number = {4},
pages = {240-241},
abstract = {Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group Plc [2019] EWHC 2419 (IPEC), High Court of England and Wales, 17 September 2019.
The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has sought guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards whether the disclosure of a design outside the Community can still qualify for protection within the Community.},
note = {Current Intelligence},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group Plc [2019] EWHC 2419 (IPEC), High Court of England and Wales, 17 September 2019.
The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has sought guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards whether the disclosure of a design outside the Community can still qualify for protection within the Community.
The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has sought guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards whether the disclosure of a design outside the Community can still qualify for protection within the Community.
van Eechoud, M.
Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 12 december 2018 (FPI Ghana / Koas c.s.) Journal Article
In: AMI, vol. 2019, no. 2, pp. 73-74, 2019.
@article{vanEechoud2019e,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 12 december 2018 (FPI Ghana / Koas c.s.)},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2019_2_p73.pdf},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-05-24},
journal = {AMI},
volume = {2019},
number = {2},
pages = {73-74},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Tsoutsanis, A.
Concise European Trade Mark and Design Law Book Chapter
In: 2nd, 2017, ISBN: 9789041156938, ( Commentary on key provisions of trade mark law and design law in: Concise European Trade Mark and Design Law, Ch. Gielen & V. von Bomhard, eds., Kluwer, 2017, p. 113-140, 156-157, 557-564, 570-574, 582-583, 629-634, 652-658, 789-793, 798-800.).
@inbook{Tsoutsanis2017,
title = {Concise European Trade Mark and Design Law},
author = {Tsoutsanis, A.},
isbn = {9789041156938},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-04-18},
edition = {2nd},
note = { Commentary on key provisions of trade mark law and design law in: Concise European Trade Mark and Design Law, Ch. Gielen \& V. von Bomhard, eds., Kluwer, 2017, p. 113-140, 156-157, 557-564, 570-574, 582-583, 629-634, 652-658, 789-793, 798-800.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Tsoutsanis, A.
Oppositieprocedures in merkenzaken Book Chapter
In: 2017, ISBN: 9789013135053, (In: Tekst en Commentaar Intellectuele Eigendom, Ch. Gielen & D.J.G. Visser, eds., Kluwer, 5th edition, 2016, p. 316-326.).
@inbook{Tsoutsanis2017b,
title = {Oppositieprocedures in merkenzaken},
author = {Tsoutsanis, A.},
isbn = {9789013135053},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-04-18},
note = {In: Tekst en Commentaar Intellectuele Eigendom, Ch. Gielen \& D.J.G. Visser, eds., Kluwer, 5th edition, 2016, p. 316-326.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Tsoutsanis, A.
Back to Black: justice.cn Journal Article
In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, no. 10, pp. 725., 2015, (
Editorial.
).
@article{,
title = {Back to Black: justice.cn},
author = {Tsoutsanis, A.},
url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2667516},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-10-15},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice},
number = {10},
pages = {725.},
abstract = {
This short - peer reviewed - article touches on innovation in China in the field of smart phones, recent legislative reform in China for fostering intellectual property and combating counterfeit and trade mark grabbing. It also touches on human rights in China, the different approach in which the West advances its economic v human rights agenda and the selective way Silicon Valley industry participates in grass roots debate on civil liberties. The article also touches on the 'right to seek counsel' as one of the fundamental rights, which many arrested lawyers in China were deprived of during the July 2015 arrests.
},
note = {
Editorial.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This short - peer reviewed - article touches on innovation in China in the field of smart phones, recent legislative reform in China for fostering intellectual property and combating counterfeit and trade mark grabbing. It also touches on human rights in China, the different approach in which the West advances its economic v human rights agenda and the selective way Silicon Valley industry participates in grass roots debate on civil liberties. The article also touches on the 'right to seek counsel' as one of the fundamental rights, which many arrested lawyers in China were deprived of during the July 2015 arrests.
A. Tsoutsanis
Trade mark applications in bad faith: righting wrong in Denmark and why the Benelux is next Journal Article
In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, no. 2, pp. 118-122, 2014.
@article{,
title = {Trade mark applications in bad faith: righting wrong in Denmark and why the Benelux is next},
author = {A. Tsoutsanis},
url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2396180},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-03-28},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice},
number = {2},
pages = {118-122},
note = {
Ook verschenen in Berichten Industri\ële Eigendom, 2013, p. 254-260.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
A. Tsoutsanis
Merkenopposities in de Benelux Miscellaneous
2014.
@misc{,
title = {Merkenopposities in de Benelux},
author = {A. Tsoutsanis},
url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2336671},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-01-09},
booktitle = {Tekst \& Commentaar IE},
pages = {270-283},
publisher = {Kluwer},
edition = {4},
abstract = {
In dit deel uit de bekende Tekst \& Commentaar serie gaat de auteur in detail in op de merkenoppositie in de Benelux. Hoe instellen, waar indienen en op welke juridische basis, zijn bijvoorbeeld een aantal vragen die in dit deel aan de orde komen. Het commentaar volgt de wettelijke structuur van het Benelux Verdrag inzake de Intellectuele Eigendom. Naast de Benelux oppositie vergelijkt de auteur ook andere deelterreinen: nietigheidsprocedure bij de overheidsrechter op (dezelfde) relatieve gronden, opposities tegen Internationale Merkaanvragen en de OHIM oppositie procedure.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
In dit deel uit de bekende Tekst & Commentaar serie gaat de auteur in detail in op de merkenoppositie in de Benelux. Hoe instellen, waar indienen en op welke juridische basis, zijn bijvoorbeeld een aantal vragen die in dit deel aan de orde komen. Het commentaar volgt de wettelijke structuur van het Benelux Verdrag inzake de Intellectuele Eigendom. Naast de Benelux oppositie vergelijkt de auteur ook andere deelterreinen: nietigheidsprocedure bij de overheidsrechter op (dezelfde) relatieve gronden, opposities tegen Internationale Merkaanvragen en de OHIM oppositie procedure.
Sakulin, W.
Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry into the Conflict between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression under European Law Book
2011, ISBN: 9789041134158.
@book{ILS22,
title = {Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry into the Conflict between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression under European Law},
author = {Sakulin, W.},
isbn = {9789041134158},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-01-01},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
A.B. Ramalho
Parody in Trademarks and Copyright: Has Humour Gone Too Far? Journal Article
In: Cambridge Student Law Review, no. 1, pp. 58-74, 2009.
@article{,
title = {Parody in Trademarks and Copyright: Has Humour Gone Too Far?},
author = {A.B. Ramalho},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/parody_final.pdf},
year = {2009},
date = {2009-09-15},
journal = {Cambridge Student Law Review},
number = {1},
pages = {58-74},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
A.B. Ramalho
Marks, Forfeiture and a Constitutional Conundrum Journal Article
In: World Trademark Review, no. 18, pp. 15-17, 2009.
@article{,
title = {Marks, Forfeiture and a Constitutional Conundrum},
author = {A.B. Ramalho},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/WTR_18%20Forfeiture.pdf},
year = {2009},
date = {2009-09-15},
journal = {World Trademark Review},
number = {18},
pages = {15-17},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
Annotatie bij Vzr. Rb. Arnhem 16 augustus 2006 ((KPN / UPC)) Miscellaneous
2007.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Vzr. Rb. Arnhem 16 augustus 2006 ((KPN / UPC))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/annotatie_ier_2006_5.pdf},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-05-25},
journal = {IER},
number = {5},
pages = {281-285},
abstract = {
Gebruik van het merk van een ander in vergelijkende reclame vergt volgens deze uitspraak onderzoek naar noodzaak dat merk te noemen. Indien die noodzaak ontbreekt, is er geen sprake van een geldige reden in de zin van artikel 13a, lid 1 sub d. BNW en sprake van onrechtmatig gebruik van het merk in de zin van artikel 6:194a BW. Het simpele feit dat een adverteerder vergelijkende reclame maakt, is volgens annotator echter voldoende noodzaak om het merk van de concurrent te noemen. Afzonderlijk onderzoek naar de noodzaak is dan dus niet vereist. Een rechter die dat wel doet, zet de richtlijn op zijn kop. Dat betekent ook dat voor een afzonderlijk onderzoek naar het bestaan van een geldige reden in het merkenrecht in zaken van vergelijkende reclame geen plaats behoort te zijn.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Gebruik van het merk van een ander in vergelijkende reclame vergt volgens deze uitspraak onderzoek naar noodzaak dat merk te noemen. Indien die noodzaak ontbreekt, is er geen sprake van een geldige reden in de zin van artikel 13a, lid 1 sub d. BNW en sprake van onrechtmatig gebruik van het merk in de zin van artikel 6:194a BW. Het simpele feit dat een adverteerder vergelijkende reclame maakt, is volgens annotator echter voldoende noodzaak om het merk van de concurrent te noemen. Afzonderlijk onderzoek naar de noodzaak is dan dus niet vereist. Een rechter die dat wel doet, zet de richtlijn op zijn kop. Dat betekent ook dat voor een afzonderlijk onderzoek naar het bestaan van een geldige reden in het merkenrecht in zaken van vergelijkende reclame geen plaats behoort te zijn.
J.J.C. Kabel
Annotatie bij Vzngr. Rb. 's-Gravenhage 12 november 2004 ((Pretium Telecom / Yiggers Nederland)) Miscellaneous
2005.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Vzngr. Rb. 's-Gravenhage 12 november 2004 ((Pretium Telecom / Yiggers Nederland))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/annotatie_ier_2005_2.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-07-06},
journal = {IER},
number = {2},
pages = {118-121},
abstract = {
Gebruik van merk en handelsnaam van een ander als zoekwoord niet op zichzelf onrechtmatig, maar wel indien aan zoekwoord advertentie van die gebruiker wordt gekoppeld. Het niet onder eigen naam doen van mededelingen over de concurrent is onrechtmatig. Waarschuwingen met betrekking tot aanbod van concurrent niet onrechtmatig indien de gemaakte vergelijking verder inhoudelijk juist is.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Gebruik van merk en handelsnaam van een ander als zoekwoord niet op zichzelf onrechtmatig, maar wel indien aan zoekwoord advertentie van die gebruiker wordt gekoppeld. Het niet onder eigen naam doen van mededelingen over de concurrent is onrechtmatig. Waarschuwingen met betrekking tot aanbod van concurrent niet onrechtmatig indien de gemaakte vergelijking verder inhoudelijk juist is.
J.J.C. Kabel
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EG 7 januari 2004 ((Gerolsteiner Brunnen / Putsch)) Miscellaneous
2005.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EG 7 januari 2004 ((Gerolsteiner Brunnen / Putsch))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/annotatie_ier_2004_2.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-06-17},
journal = {IER},
number = {2},
pages = {150-153},
abstract = {
In een conflict tussen twee overeenstemmende merken voor dezelfde waren, is gebruik als merk van het conflicterende teken geen doorslaggevende beoordelingsfactor, indien het conflicterende merk een (erkende) herkomstaanduiding betreft. Artikel 6 lid 1 van Richtlijn 89/104/EEG geeft slechts \'{e}\'{e}n beoordelingscriterium voor de verbodsbevoegdheid van de merkhouder, namelijk of het gebruik van de geografische aanduiding in overeenstemming is met de (nationale) eerlijke gebruiken in handel en nijverheid. De nationale rechter dient daarbij alle omstandigheden van het geval te betrekken.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
In een conflict tussen twee overeenstemmende merken voor dezelfde waren, is gebruik als merk van het conflicterende teken geen doorslaggevende beoordelingsfactor, indien het conflicterende merk een (erkende) herkomstaanduiding betreft. Artikel 6 lid 1 van Richtlijn 89/104/EEG geeft slechts één beoordelingscriterium voor de verbodsbevoegdheid van de merkhouder, namelijk of het gebruik van de geografische aanduiding in overeenstemming is met de (nationale) eerlijke gebruiken in handel en nijverheid. De nationale rechter dient daarbij alle omstandigheden van het geval te betrekken.
J.J.C. Kabel
Annotatie bij Hof Amsterdam 30 september 2004 ((T-Mobile / ID&T Mobile)) Miscellaneous
2005.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof Amsterdam 30 september 2004 ((T-Mobile / ID\&T Mobile))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IER2005_1_TMobile.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-04-06},
journal = {IER},
number = {1},
pages = {41-43.},
abstract = {
Bij de beoordeling van verwarringsgevaar dient niet beslissend te zijn de door de inbreukmaker zelf gebezigde uitingen, maar komt het aan op het normale gebruik van het teken. Het hof kan dan ook voorbijgaan aan marktonderzoek dat uitsluitend gebaseerd is op de website en op commercials van de inbreukmaker.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Bij de beoordeling van verwarringsgevaar dient niet beslissend te zijn de door de inbreukmaker zelf gebezigde uitingen, maar komt het aan op het normale gebruik van het teken. Het hof kan dan ook voorbijgaan aan marktonderzoek dat uitsluitend gebaseerd is op de website en op commercials van de inbreukmaker.
J.J.C. Kabel
Annotatie bij het Hof van Justitie EG, 6 november 2003 ((Piergiorgio Gambelli e.a/Italië)) Miscellaneous
2004.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij het Hof van Justitie EG, 6 november 2003 ((Piergiorgio Gambelli e.a/Itali\"{e}))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AnnotatieGambelli.IER2004-1.pdf},
year = {2004},
date = {2004-03-09},
journal = {IER},
number = {1},
pages = {61-69},
note = {
Hof van Justitie EG, 6 november 2003: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=nl\&jur=C,T,F\&num=C-243/01\&td=ALL
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
2004.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij het Hof van Justitie EG 23 oktober 2003 ((Adidas-Salomon AG, voorheen Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux BV/Fitnessworld Trading Ltd))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AnnotatieAdidas.IE2004-1.pdf},
year = {2004},
date = {2004-03-09},
journal = {IER},
number = {1},
pages = {53-58},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}