Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Promoting the public interest and the European Trade Mark Directive: a contradictory approach

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

This article suggests that there are two contradictory approaches to promoting the public interest embodied in the Trade Mark Directive. The ‘external approach’ assumes the Directive will operate in a relatively free market, which determines the penumbra of protection afforded a mark. The ‘internal approach’ assumes courts may intervene to balance the sometimes conflicting interests of different market actors. Recent CJEU case law in relation to the registration of non-distinctive signs (art 3(1)(b–c)) and ‘double identity’ infringement (art 5(1)(a)), which illustrates this contradiction, will be considered. It is argued that the internal approach to protecting the public interest should be favoured.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The First Council Directive of 21 December 1989 to approximate the law of the Member States relating to trade marks (2008/95/EC; formerly EEC 89/104).

  2. Davis [2].

  3. Motta [14]; Anderman [1].

  4. Motta [14].

  5. Max Planck [10].

  6. See for example, Case C-48/09 Lego Juris A/S v OHIM [2010] ECR I-08403 63, para 43.

  7. Case C-299/99 Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd. [2002], ECR I-5475.

  8. Case C-456/01P and C-457/01P Henkel KGaA v OHIM (Joined cases) [2004], ECR. I-5089at para 48.

  9. Case C-108/97 Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions-und Vertriebs GmbH v Boots-und Segelzubehor Walter Huber [1999] ECR I-2779 at para 25.

  10. Case T-435/11 Universal Display Corp v OHIM judgement of 2 May 2012 (not yet published).

  11. Case C-104/01 Libertel Groep BV v Benelux Merkenbureau [2003] ECR I-3793 at paras. 54–60.

  12. Davis [3].

  13. Coca Cola Trade Marks (1986) RPC 421 at 456.

  14. YORK Trade Mark [1984] RPC 231.

  15. For example, Nola, 14 January 1963, Bundesgerichtshof (Ib ZB 29/62) [1963] Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz and Urheberrecht 469.

  16. Windsurfing at para 30.

  17. Case-53/01 Linde AG’s Trade Mark Application [2003], ECR I-3161 at paras. 48. 75–77.

  18. Provided of course it did not fall foul of art 3(1)(e)–(g) TMD; Philips at para 39. Suthersanen [17].

  19. In these cases, their equivalents: art 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) CTM (CTM Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009; formerly Council Regulation (EC) 40/49).

  20. Case T-23/07 Borco v OHIM BORCO-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co KG v OHIM [2009], ECR II 00887 (General Court); C-265/09 P BORCO-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co KG v OHIM [2011], ECR I-08265 CJEU

  21. Case C-51/10 P Technopol (Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v OHIM [2011], ECR I-01541.

  22. Borco at para 49.

  23. Borco at paras. 48–49.

  24. Borco at para 49.

  25. Case-136/02 P Mag Instrument Inc v OHIM [2004], ECR I-9165.

  26. The CJEU cited (at para 33) it decision in Procter a Gamble as a precedent to this effect. Case-437/01P Procter & Gamble v OHIM [2004], ECR 1-5173 at para 33.

  27. Borco, paras. 37 and 38.

  28. Technopol at paras. 32–40.

  29. Case-558/08 Portakabin Ltd v Primakabin BV [2010] ECR I-06963; on exhaustion of rights, see Hays [7].

  30. See for example, Gangjee & Burrell [5]; Horton [8].

  31. Case-236/08, Case-238/08 Google France Sarl v Louis Vuitton Mallettier SA [2010], ECR I-2417.

  32. Case-323/09 Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer Plc, judgement of 22 September 2011 (not yet published).

  33. Case-324/09 L’Oreal SA v eBay International AG, judgement of 12 July 2011 (not yet published) 52 at para AG50. On trade marks and the Internet, see Marsoof [9]; Morcom [12].

  34. L’Oreal v eBay at para AG4.

  35. Google at para 91–97; see Simon Fhima [4].

  36. Meale [13].

  37. Interflora v Marks & Spencer at para 35.

  38. Interflora v Marks & Spencer at paras. 54–59.

  39. Interflora v Marks & Spencer at paras. 60–65.

  40. Psaroudakis [16].

  41. Max Planck [10] at para 1.50.

  42. Case-46/10 Viking Gas A/S v Kosan Gas a/s, judgement of 14 July 2011 (not yet published) at para 31. See McEvedy [11].

  43. Viking Gas at para 31.

  44. See for example the criticism of free market economics offered by Richard Posner, a key figure in Law & Economics, in his recent book Posner [15]; also Griffiths [6] and his argument regarding the need for a relationship between trade mark and corporate socially responsible standards.

References

  1. Anderman, S., Ezrachi, A.: Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers. OUP, Oxford (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Davis, J.: A European constitution for IPRs? Competition, trade marks and culturally significant signs. Common Mark. Law Rep. 41, 109–112 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Davis, J.: Protecting the common: delineating a public domain in trade mark law. In: Dinwoodie, G.B., Janis, M.D. (eds.) Trade Mark Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research, pp. 345–367. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Simon Fhima, I.: The Court of Justice’s protection of the advertising function of trade marks: an (almost) sceptical analysis. J. Intell. Property Law Practice 6(5), 325–329 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gangjee, D., Burrell, R.: Because you’re worth it: L’Oreal and the prohibition on free riding. Mod. Law Rev. 73(2), 282–295 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Griffiths, A.: Trademarks and responsible capitalism. Int. Rev. Ind. Property Copyr. Law 43(7), 798–824 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hays, T.: The free movement (or not) of trademark protected goods in Europe. In: Dinwoodie, G.B., Janis, M.D. (eds.) Trade Mark Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research, pp. 204–229. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Horton, A.: The implications of L’Oreal v bellure—a retrospective and a looking forward: the essential functions of a trade mark and when is an advantage unfair? Eur. Intellect. Prop. Rev. 33(9), 550–558 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Marsoof, A.: Keywords advertising: issues of trade mark infringement. JCL & T 5(4), 240–251 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Planck, M.: Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law: Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System (2011). Available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/tm/20110308_allensbach-study_en.pdf

  11. McEvedy, V.: Keywords and resales and other fair and referential uses. Intell. Property Q. (3), 149–172 (2012)

  12. Morcom, C.: Trademarks and the Internet: where are now? Eur. Intellect. Prop. Rev. 34(1), 40–53 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Meale, D.: Interflora: the last word on key word advertising? J. Intell. Property Law Practice 7(1), 11–14 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Motta, M.: Competition Policy, Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Posner, R.: A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of ’08 and the Descent into Depression. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Psaroudakis, G.: In search of trade mark functions: keyword advertising in European Law. Eur. Intellect. Prop. Rev. 34(1), 33–39 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Suthersanen, U.: The European Court of Justice in Philips v Remington—trademarks and market freedom. Intell. Property Q. (7), 257–283 (2003)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wolfson College, Barton Road, Cambridge, CB3 9BB, UK

    Jennifer Davis

Authors
  1. Jennifer Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Davis.

Additional information

This article is based on a presentation given at the Annual Conference on Trademarks and Designs in Europe, organised by ERA on 15–16 November 2012 in Alicante.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davis, J. Promoting the public interest and the European Trade Mark Directive: a contradictory approach. ERA Forum 14, 117–129 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-013-0288-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-013-0288-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation