Europeisk varumärkespraxis Richard Wessman

Transkript

1 Europeisk varumärkespraxis 2012 Richard Wessman

2 1. Frågor om skyddsomfång

3 Allergan v. H. Rubenstein och L Oréal Mål nr C-100/11, EU-domstolens dom av den 10 maj 2012 Allergan Inc. BOTOX Helena Rubinstein BOTOLIST L Oréal BOTOCYL

4 Botulinum toxin och BOTOX

5 Anseendeskydd EUD:s trestegsmetod (anseendeskydd): Det äldre märkets anseende Konsumentens association mellan märkena Snyltning eller skada

6 Snyltning eller skada!? (BOTOX-målet, p. 93) "The proprietor of the earlier mark must prove that use of the mark for which registration is sought would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark. The proprietor of the earlier trade mark is not required, for that purpose, to demonstrate actual and present injury to its mark..."

7 Allvarlig risk!? (BOTOX-målet, p. 93) "When it is foreseeable that such injury will ensue from the use which the proprietor of the later mark may be led to make of its mark, the proprietor of the earlier mark cannot be required to wait for this actually to occur in order to be able to prohibit that use. The proprietor of the earlier mark must, however, prove that there is a serious risk that such an injury will occur in the future."

8 Bred analys av riskens art och omfattning (BOTOX-målet, p. 95) a future risk, which is not hypothetical, of unfair advantage or detriment, and such a conclusion may be established, in particular, on the basis of logical deductions made from an analysis of the probabilities and by taking account of the normal practice in the relevant commercial sector as well as all the other circumstances of the case."

9 Kritiska omständigheter BOTOX ursprungliga och förvärvade styrka Tydlig association mellan märkena (till BOTOX, inte botulinum toxin) Den nära relationen mellan varorna (kosmetik/rynkpreparat)

10 GUCCI v. GUDDY Mål T-389/11, Tribunalens avgörande den 12 juli 2012 GUCCI GUDDY

11 GUCCI och känneteckenskraft!?

12 Känneteckenskraft och förväxling EUD:s fyrstegsmodell (förväxlingsrisk): Märkenas likhet Varornas likhet Det äldre märkets styrka Övriga omständigheter

13 Omstridda varor (GUDDY) Class 9: Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic and optical apparatus and instruments ; Class 14: Precious metals, horological instruments, jewellery, precious stones.

14 Känneteckenskraft endast för vissa varor!? (GUDDI, p. 17) [T]he Board of Appeal found that that character had been proved only in respect of horological instruments and jewellery, and that the earlier mark was not specifically well known for raw materials, such as precious stones and precious metals in Class 14, or for the goods in Class 9..

15 Otydlig distinktion mellan varornas känneteckenskraft!? (GUDDI, punkt 20) [T]he statements of the Board of Appeal do not make it possible to understand the reasons why the documents provided by the applicant are not relevant or sufficient for the purpose of proving the highly distinctive character of the earlier mark in relation to the goods other than those covered by the categories of horological instruments and jewellery. The contested decision does not contain any comparison between the goods.

16 Pelikan-målet, användningstvång och ond tro

17 Pelicantravel v. Pelikan Mål T-136/11, Tribunalens avgörande den 13 december 2012 Pelikan Vertrietsgesellschaft mbh&co. KG Ny registrering Pelikan Vertrietsgesellschaft mbh&co. KG Tidigare registrering

18 Varumärket Pelikan

19 Breda ansökningar accepteras principiellt Pelikan-målet, p. 54 [T]he mere registration of a large variety of goods and services as such is a rather common practice of companies trying to obtain a (Community) trade mark registration; it does not involve conduct that departs from accepted principles of ethical behaviour or honest commercial and business practices (med hänvisning till Board of Appeal)

20 Avsikt att använda märket!? (Pelikan-målet, p. 56) [T]he intention to prevent a third party from marketing a product may, in certain circumstances, be an element of bad faith on the part of an applicant for registration of a trade mark. That is the case particularly where it subsequently becomes apparent that the applicant has had the sign registered as a Community trade mark with no intention of using it, its sole objective being to prevent a third party from entering the market (med hänvisning till EUD i Lindt I).

21 Ny ansökan före hävningstalan Pelikan-målet, p. 47 Furthermore, as the applicant admits in the response, at the time of filing the application for registration of the contested Community trade mark, Pelikan had no objective reason to believe that a request would be made five years later for the revocation of Community trade mark No

22 Registrering av uppdaterat varumärke!? Pelikan-målet, p. 41 [O]nly the proprietor can assess whether it is reasonable and meaningful to seek registration of a Community trade mark which differs from its earlier Community trade marks, those differences being linked to the evolution of its company logo..

23 IP-Translator EUD C-307/10, 19 juni 2012 An applicant for a national trade mark who uses all the general indications of a particular class heading of the Classification referred to in Article 1 of the Nice Agreement to identify the goods or services for which the protection of the trade mark is sought must specify whether its application for registration is intended to cover all the goods or services included in the alphabetical list of that class or only some of those goods or services. If the application concerns only some of those goods or services, the applicant is required to specify which of the goods or services in that class are intended to be covered. (Del av domslut).

24 2. Särskiljningsförmåga

25 Lindt II Mål nr C-98/11, EUD den 24 maj 2012

26 Smart Technologies Mål nr C-311/11, EUD den 12 juli 2012 WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH (VI GÖR DET SÄRSKILDA ENKELT)

27 3. Relationen mönster/varumärke

28 Neuman och Galdeano del Sel v. Baena Mål nr C-101/11 och C-102/11, EUD den 18 oktober 2012 Neuman, Galdeano (äldre CTM) Baena Group (yngre CD)

29 Jur Dr Richard Wessman, von lode advokat