Skip to main content

The Coexistence of Trade Mark Laws and Rights on the Internet, and the Impact of Geolocation Technologies

Abstract

This paper reexamines the current legal landscape regarding the protection of trade marks and other industrial property rights in signs on the Internet. It is based on a comparative analysis of EU and national laws, in particular, German, U.S., and U.K. law. It starts with a short restatement of the principles governing trade mark conflicts that occur within a particular jurisdiction (part 2) and proceeds to the regulation of transnational disputes (part 3). This juxtaposition yields two basic approaches. Whereas trade mark conflicts within closed legal systems are generally adjudicated according to a binary either/or logic, transnational disputes are and should indeed be solved in a way that leads to a fair coexistence of conflicting trade mark laws and rights under multiple laws. This paper explains how geolocation technologies can alleviate the implementation of the principle of fair coexistence in concrete cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For reasons of simplicity, I use the term “trade mark” for both trade marks proper and other industrial property rights in signs, in particular company names, unless I expressly distinguish between different categories of rights.

  2. 2.

    See, for example Gucci Am., Inc. v. Hall & Assoc., 135 F. Supp. 2d 409, 421–22 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“the … Web is not geographically constrained … Web publishers are without any means to limit access to their sites based on the geographic location of particular Internet users.”); Wichard (2005), p. 262; Bettinger and Thum (2000a), pp. 162, 164; Johnson (2014), at fn. 308 (“For example, this Article assumes that the Internet cannot be divided or compartmentalized into geographies. Future advancements may prove otherwise”).

  3. 3.

    See Recital 2, Art. 1(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 78, 1 (codified version, in the following: CTMR).

  4. 4.

    Article 8, 53(1) CTMR; Art. 4 Directive 2008/95/EC of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (codified version), OJ L 299, 25 (in the following: TMD); Sec. 9 German Trade Mark Act. On the principle of priority see ECJ Case C-245/02 Anheuser-Busch Inc., EU:C:2004:717, paras. 98–99 (principle of priority as a basic principle of trade mark and IP law); CJEU Case C-561/11 Fédération Cynologique Internationale, EU:C:2013:91, paras. 32 et seq.; CJEU Case C-491/14 Rosa dels Vents Assessoria SL, EU:C:2015:161, paras. 21 et seq.

  5. 5.

    See Art. 17 TRIPS; Art. 3, 6–7 TMD; Art. 7, 12–13 CTMR. On the trade mark public domain see Peukert (2012a), p. 23 et seq.

  6. 6.

    ECJ Case C-3/03 P Matratzen Concord, EU:C:2004:233, paras. 40–42; ECJ Case C-421/04 Matratzen Concord, EU:C:2006:164, paras. 22–32; for German court practice see Ingerl and Rohnke (2010), Sec. 8 German Trade Mark Act, paras. 85 et seq. The pending revision of the EU trademark system will stick to this approach; see Amendment 22, European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 February 2014 on the proposal for a directive to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (recast), COM(2013)162 – 2013/0089(COD) (rejection of the Commission proposal to require examination of grounds for non-registrability in other Member States where a trade mark in a foreign language is translated or transcribed in an official language of the Member States).

  7. 7.

    For the OHIM see Max Planck Study (2011), p. 141.

  8. 8.

    See USPTO (2015), § 1207.01(b)(vi); Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed.Cir. 2005); Otokoyama Co. Ltd. v. Wine of Japan Import, Inc., 175 F.3d 266 (2nd Cir. 1999) (otokoyama not eligible for trade mark protection in the U.S. because of its longstanding use as a designation for sake by many traders in Japan).

  9. 9.

    German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 23/02, 2005 GRUR Int. pp. 70–72 – Gazoz (Art. 12(c) CTMR); Hamburg Court of Appeal Case 3 U 210/02, GRUR-RR 2006, 400 – STOLITSCHNAJA (Art. 6(c) TMD); ECJ Case C-421/04 Matratzen Concord, EU:C:2006:164, para. 31 (registration of foreign terms does not necessarily mean that all uses have to be prohibited). See also German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 100/11, 2013 GRUR p. 631 para. 64 – AMARULA/Marulablu; German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 114/13, 2015 GRUR p. 587 paras. 22–30 – PINAR; CJEU Case C-147/14 Loutfi Management, EU:C:2015:420, para. 25.

  10. 10.

    CJEU Case C-235/09 DHL Express France, EU:C:2011:238, paras. 38–39, 43–44, 46–48, 50. See also Düsseldorf Court of Appeal Case I-20 U 5/14 – Combit/Commit (request for preliminary ruling).

  11. 11.

    Article 54 EPC; Sec. 3 German Patent Act.

  12. 12.

    See, e.g. Sec. 1(1) and Sec. 3(1) German Utility Models Act.

  13. 13.

    See Rehbinder and Peukert (2015), para. 233; Glöckner and Kur (2014), pp. 29, 31.

  14. 14.

    For U.S. law see In re Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879); Lemley and Dogan (2007). The distinction between rights in innovations and in signs in the EU is less clear. See CJEU Case C-323/09 Interflora, EU:C:2011:604, para. 38.

  15. 15.

    Beebe (2004).

  16. 16.

    For U.S. law see 15 U.S.C. §§ 1057(b), 1115(a); Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358, 362 (2nd Cir. 1959); McCarthy (2014), § 26:38.

  17. 17.

    Article 54 CTMR, Art. 9 TMD; CJEU Case C 482/09 Budějovický Budvar, EU:C:2011:605, paras. 40–50.

  18. 18.

    Section 22 German Trade Mark Act; CJEU Case C-65/12 Leidseplein Beheer and Hendrikus de Vries, EU:C:2014:49, para. 60.

  19. 19.

    For Germany see Sec. 22(1) No. 1 Act on the Integration of the Saarland in the Area of Industrial Property Law, 30.6.1959, Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 388; Secs. 1, 4, 30 Act on the Extension of Intellectual Property Rights (Erstreckungsgesetz), 23.4.1992, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 938.

  20. 20.

    Article 12 lit. a CTMR, Art. 6(1)(a) TMD.

  21. 21.

    German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 174/07, 2010 GRUR p. 738, paras. 18–19 – Peek & Cloppenburg I; CJEU Case C 482/09 Budějovický Budvar, EU:C:2011:605, paras. 72–82 (honest concurrent use of two identical trade marks designating identical products under U.K. and EU law). See also ECJ Case C-245/02 Anheuser-Busch Inc., EU:C:2004:717, paras. 80–81.

  22. 22.

    On the separate exclusive zone of earlier use-rights of merely local reach vis-à-vis younger Community trade marks see Art. 8(4), 111(1) CTMR and CJEU Case C 96/09 P Anheuser-Busch, EU:C:2011:189, paras. 156–163; CFI Joined cases T-318/06 to T-321/06 Alberto Jorge Moreira da Fonseca, EU:T:2009:77, paras. 32 et seq.; Austrian Supreme Court, Case 4 Ob 148/14i, 2015 GRUR Int. pp. 718, 720 – Fashion One. On separate zones of use-rights under German law see German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 174/07, 2010 GRUR 738 para. 19 – Peek & Cloppenburg I. For U.S. law see McCarthy (2014), §§ 26:40, 25:53.

  23. 23.

    See ECJ Case C-10/89 SA CNL-Sucal, EU:C:1990:359, paras. 13–18 (both independent proprietors of national marks “HAG” are entitled to prohibit the unauthorized importation of coffee labeled “HAG”); Dudley v. Healthsource Chiropractic, Inc., 883 F. Supp. 2d 377, 394 (W.D.N.Y. 2012).

  24. 24.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, Case C-10/89 CNL-Sucal, EU:C:1990:359, para. 25.

  25. 25.

    With regard to German re-unification see German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 24/93, 1996 GRUR p. 897 – Altenburger Spielkartenfabrik; regarding the EC Common Market see ECJ Case C-192/73 Van Zuylen frères, EU:C:1974:72, paras. 12–15; regarding online communication Allard Enterprises, Inc. v. Advanced Programming Resources, Inc., 249 F.3d 564, 575 (6th Cir. 2001).

  26. 26.

    See CJEU Case C 482/09 Budějovický Budvar, EU:C:2011:605, para. 83 (honest concurrent use under U.K. and EU law); CJEU Case C-65/12 Leidseplein Beheer and Hendrikus de Vries; EU:C:2014:49, paras. 27 et seq. (earlier TM coexisting with younger TM with reputation). For U.S. law see Nupp (2003); Johnson (2014), p. 1266 et seq. with further references.

  27. 27.

    Cf. German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 41/08, 2011 GRUR p. 623, paras. 40 et seq. – Peek & Cloppenburg II (the registration of a nationwide trade mark containing the common company name unfairly prejudices the equilibrium between the homonymous companies).

  28. 28.

    Dudley v. Healthsource Chiropractic, Inc., 883 F. Supp. 2d 377, 394 (W.D.N.Y. 2012) (national advertising activities that cannot reasonably be geographically restricted); Sec. 30(2) No. 2 Act on the Extension of Intellectual Property Rights (Erstreckungsgesetz) (regulating the coexistence of trade mark rights after German re-unification).

  29. 29.

    German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 174/07, 2010 GRUR p. 738 para. 18 – Peek & Cloppenburg I.

  30. 30.

    German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 174/07, 2010 GRUR p. 738 para. 37 – Peek & Cloppenburg I (both honestly concurring parties have to use sufficiently clear disclaimers); Johnson (2014), p. 1293.

  31. 31.

    Number of contracting parties of the Paris Convention as of 12 March 2015, see http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=2.

  32. 32.

    Glöckner and Kur (2014), p. 31.

  33. 33.

    Cf. Stichting BDO v. BDO Unibank Inc. [2013] EWHC 418 (Ch) (dispute about “BDO” between Binder Dijker Otte & Co in Europe and Banco De Oro from the Philippines); Euromarket Designs Incorporated v. Peters & Anor [2000] EWHC 453 (Ch) (dispute about “Crate & Barrel” as a name of a chain of stores in the U.S. and a store in Ireland called “Create & Barrel”, which the defendant claimed to have devised independently upon the idea that “I had been working in pubs all my life lifting crates and changing barrels.”); German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 163/02, 2005 GRUR p. 431 – HOTEL MARITIME (dispute between German hotel chain “MARITIM” and a Copenhagen hotel called “HOTEL MARITIME”).

  34. 34.

    ECJ Case C-10/89 SA CNL-Sucal, EU:C:1990:359 (Hag Germany v. Hag Belgium); Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002) (Harrods UK v. Harrods South America); see also Ohly (2005), p. 249.

  35. 35.

    See Bettinger and Thum (2000b), p. 287 et seq., 302 (“consideration should be given to restricting absolute trade mark protection and applying a coexistence model restricted by an unfair-use proviso.”)

  36. 36.

    See cf. Goldsmith (1998).

  37. 37.

    Chander (2009), p. 312 (“But with respect to mandatory law, democracy demands glocalization, at least until ‘We the People’ elect to subject ourselves to foreign rules.”)

  38. 38.

    See Wichard (2005), p. 257 et seq.

  39. 39.

    See Peukert (2012b).

  40. 40.

    Peukert (2012b), pp. 193–194 with further references.

  41. 41.

    See CJEU Case C-523/10 Wintersteiger, EU:C:2012:220, paras. 24 and 25 and CJEU Case 170/12 Peter Pinckney, EU:C:2013:635, paras. 45–46; Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc., 939 F.Supp. 1032, 1039–40 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (“While this Court has neither the jurisdiction nor the desire to prohibit the creation of Internet sites around the globe, it may prohibit access to those sites in this country.”)

  42. 42.

    See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV, 2000 WL 255989 (2000 W.D.Pa.) (injunction against online public performance in the U.S. only); Pichler (2008), para. 974. See also Art. 2:604 CLIP Principles (2013) (“Scope of injunctions (1) When a court has applied a law pursuant to Article 3:601, an injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction shall concern only activities affecting intellectual property rights protected under the national law or laws applied by the court.”); AIPPI (2001).

  43. 43.

    Art. 3:603(1) CLIP Principles (2013); § 321 ALI Principles (2008) and note 5 to § 204 ALI Principles (application of only one law addresses concerns that the defendant’s residence may be an “information haven”); Ginsburg (1998), pp. 18–19.

  44. 44.

    See infra, 3.2.1.

  45. 45.

    Art. 3:603(3), Art. 2:604(2) CLIP Principles (2013) (scope of injunction limited in that case); Glöckner and Kur (2014), p. 35.

  46. 46.

    On horizontality in international law see Crawford (2012), p. 485.

  47. 47.

    Art. 6(3) Paris Convention (in the following: PC); German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 163/02, 2005 GRUR p. 431 – HOTEL MARITIME; Japanese Supreme Court Case H6-(Ne)-3272, 29 IIC pp. 331, 334 (1998) – BBS Wheels III; Barcelona.com v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617, 628 (4th Cir. 2003).

  48. 48.

    German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 75/10, 2012 GRUR p. 621 – Oscar; WIPO (2001), para. 9.01. But see Ohly (2005), pp. 247 and 254; Bettinger and Thum (2000b), p. 287; Glöckner and Kur (2014), p. 29 (stressing the differences between conflicts of norms and conflicts of rights).

  49. 49.

    See Art. 15(2) WIPO (2001) (user “owns a right in the sign” in another Member State or she “is permitted to use the sign” under the law of another Member State to which she has a close connection); Art. 4(a)(ii) UDRP (1999) (“rights” or “legitimate interests” of the registrant).

  50. 50.

    Supra 2.2.1–2.2.2.

  51. 51.

    ECJ Case C-245/02 Anheuser-Busch, EU:C:2004:717, para. 82. See also Art. 6 TMD and 12 CTMR (honest practices) and CJEU Case C-558/08 Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV, EU:C:2010:416, para. 69. See also Art. 7 TMD, 13 CTMR (legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose commercialization of goods with regard to which the rights in the trade mark have been exhausted).

  52. 52.

    CJEU Case C 482/09 Budějovický Budvar, EU:C:2011:605, para. 34; CJEU Case C-65/12 Leidseplein Beheer and Hendrikus de Vries, EU:C:2014:49, para. 46; Kur (2014).

  53. 53.

    According to Art. 10ter(1) PC, the Paris Union countries have to assure to nationals of the other countries of the Union “appropriate legal remedies effectively to repress all the acts referred to” in Art. 10bis PC.

  54. 54.

    See also Art. 12(1) CTMR, Art. 6(1) TMD.

  55. 55.

    Pflüger (2015), pp. 298–301.

  56. 56.

    See Grupo Gigante SA De CV v. Dallo & Co., Inc., 391 F.3d 1088, 1099–1100 (9th Cir. 2004); ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc., 482 F.3d 135, 162–163 (2nd Cir. 2007).

  57. 57.

    Bodenhausen (1969), pp. 143–145; Pflüger (2015), p. 298.

  58. 58.

    Schultz and Ridi (2015). On the concept of comity in transnational IP disputes see also Peukert (2013), PRE:C17-8. On international comity as the basis for the doctrine of foreign equivalents in U.S. trade mark law see Enrique Bernat F., S.A. v. Guadalajara, Inc., 210 F.3d 439, 445 (5th Cir. 2000); McCarthy (2014), § 12:41 (recognition of a generic word in any language as a mark would create a barrier to international trade).

  59. 59.

    Litecubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc., 523 F.3d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

  60. 60.

    See Art. 4, 62, 63 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 351/1 (in the following: Brussels Regulation Ibis); Art. 2:101 CLIP Principles (2013). As regards the competence of the court at the place of activity see CJEU Case C-523/10 Wintersteiger, EU:C:2012:220, para. 37; Article 93(5) CTMR; CJEU Case 360/12 Coty Germany, EU:C:2014:1318, paras. 26 et seq.; § 204(1) ALI Principles (2008) (where the defendant “has substantially acted, or taken substantial preparatory acts, to initiate or further an alleged infringement”).

  61. 61.

    Cf. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 247 et seq. (1981). Forum non conveniens is not applicable in the context of the EU rules on jurisdiction; see ECJ Case C-281/02 Owusu, EU:C:2005:120.

  62. 62.

    CJEU Case 360/12 Coty Germany, EU:C:2014:1318.

  63. 63.

    On the duality of linking factors under Art. 7(2) Brussels Regulation Ibis see CJEU Case C-523/10 Wintersteiger, EU:C:2012:220, paras. 19, 21; see also § 304(2) ALI Principles (2008) (where a person’s activities “give rise to an infringement claim”); Art. 2:202 CLIP Principles (2013).

  64. 64.

    CJEU Case 170/12 Peter Pinckney, EU:C:2013:635, para. 43.

  65. 65.

    CJEU Case C-523/10 Wintersteiger, EU:C:2012:220, para. 46; Austrian Supreme Court Case No. 4Ob82/12f, IIC 2013, 992, 997–8 – Wintersteiger III (google.de is rarely used by Austrian consumers).

  66. 66.

    CJEU Case 170/12 Peter Pinckney, EU:C:2013:635, paras. 44, 47.

  67. 67.

    See Wichard (2005), p. 262; Bettinger and Thum (2000a), p. 164; Kur (2005), p. 175 et seq.; Glöckner and Kur (2014), pp. 29–30; Nupp (2003), p. 620.

  68. 68.

    Upper Administrative Court of North Rhine Westphalia, Case 13 A 2018/11, juris; Svantesson (2007); Trimble (2012), p. 586 et seq.; King (2011), 66 pp. et seq.; critical Hoeren (2007); Winkelmüller and Kessler (2009); Pichler (2008), para. 841.

  69. 69.

    I owe this distinction to a remark made by Dan Svantesson.

  70. 70.

    ALI Principles (2008), pp. 50–51, 56; Trimble (2012), p. 589; Svantesson (2004); Pichler (2008), para. 841; Garnett (2005), p. 947; If the defendant employs geolocation and access controls, she does not violate a court order (injunction) that was based on a different trade mark law; see Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc., 939 F.Supp. 1032, 1039–1040 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

  71. 71.

    Svantesson (2004), p. 132; Reidenberg (2005), p. 1962 (widespread availability of geolocation tools “shifts the burden from demonstrating that a jurisdiction was targeted to showing that reasonable efforts were made to avoid contact with the jurisdiction.”); King (2011), p. 88 et seq.; Fawcett and Torremans (2011), paras. 10.20–21 (“targeting the world”).

  72. 72.

    German Federal Supreme Court Case VI ZR 23/09, NJW 2010, 1752 para. 17 – New York Times; Fawcett and Torremans (2011), para. 10.72; Torremans (2014), pp. 386–387.

  73. 73.

    Chander (2009), fn. 190.

  74. 74.

    Dinwoodie et al. (2009), pp. 207–208.

  75. 75.

    German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 163/02, 2005 GRUR pp. 431, 433 – HOTEL MARITIME; German Federal Supreme Court Case VI ZR 23/09, 2010 NJW p. 1752, paras. 16–29 – New York Times, citing High Court of Australia Dow Jones and Company Inc. v. Gutnick [2002] HCA 56; French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) Case 06-20230, 13 July 2010; French Supreme Court Case 11-26822, 22 January 2014; on U.S. law see McCarthy (2014), § 32:45.50; Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (the creation of intentional effects suffices to establish personal jurisdiction); Art. 2:202 CLIP Principles (2013); §204(2) ALI Principles (2008).

  76. 76.

    ALI Principles (2008), 49; Kur (2013), Art. 2:202 CLIP Principles, C17.

  77. 77.

    German Federal Supreme Court Case VI ZR 23/09, 2010 NJW p. 1752 para. 14 – New York Times.

  78. 78.

    See Art. 6(1) Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), OJ L 199/40 (in the following: Rome II Regulation: “The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of an act of unfair competition shall be the law of the country where competitive relations or the collective interests of consumers are, or are likely to be, affected.”); German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 131/12, 2014 MMR p. 605, para. 36 – englischsprachige Pressemitteilung. See also Art. 6(3)(a) Rome II Regulation (“The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a restriction of competition shall be the law of the country where the market is, or is likely to be, affected.”)

  79. 79.

    See Sec. 34(1) Austrian Private International Law Act (Bundesgesetz über das internationale Privatrecht (IPR-Gesetz)) (“Das Entstehen, der Inhalt und das Erlöschen von Immaterialgüterrechten sind nach dem Recht des Staates zu beurteilen, in dem eine Benützungs- oder Verletzungshandlung gesetzt wird.”)

  80. 80.

    Articles 5(2), 7(8) Berne Convention; Subafilms v. MGM-Pathe Communications, 24 F.3d 1088, 1097 footnote 15 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (“ambiguous concept”).

  81. 81.

    German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 75/10, 2012 GRUR p. 621 para. 34 – Oscar.

  82. 82.

    See Glöckner and Kur (2014), p. 34.

  83. 83.

    Article 16(1) TRIPS; Art. 5(1) TMD.

  84. 84.

    See Arts. 2, 3, 6 s. 1 WIPO (2001); CJEU Case C-324/09 L'Oréal and Others, EU:C:2011:474, paras. 62–64; CJEU Case 173/11 Football Dataco, EU:C:2012:642, paras. 37 et seq. (copyright); Austrian Supreme Court Case 4Ob82/12f, 44 IIC pp. 992, 996–998 (2013) – Wintersteiger III; German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 75/10, 2012 GRUR p. 621 paras. 34–55 – Oscar; Stichting BDO v. BDO Unibank Inc. [2013] EWHC 418 (Ch), para. 106; Art. 3:602 CLIP Principles (2013); Kur (2013), Art. 3:602 CLIP Principles C03; but see Cologne District Court Case 6 W 161/07, 2008 GRUR-RR p. 71 (denying infringement jurisdiction).

  85. 85.

    Wichard (2005), p. 261; Kur (2005), p. 179 (common sense compromise); Kur (2013), Art. 3:602 CLIP Principles, C05.

  86. 86.

    CJEU Case 324/09 L'Oréal/eBay International, ECLI:EU:C:2011:474, para. 65; Austrian Supreme Court Case 4Ob82/12f, 44 IIC pp. 992, 996–998 (2013) – Wintersteiger III; French Supreme Court Case 11-26822, 22 January 2014; Fawcett and Torremans (2011), paras. 10.29–30.

  87. 87.

    German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 75/10, 2012 GRUR p. 621 para. 36 – Oscar; German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 131/12, 2014 MMR p. 605 para. 31 – englischsprachige Pressemitteilung.

  88. 88.

    But see German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 131/12, 2014 MMR p. 605 para. 46 – englischsprachige Pressemitteilung (stressing that the defendant did not employ technological measures to prevent German consumers from accessing the website in question).

  89. 89.

    Cf. Euromarket Designs Incorporated v. Peters & Anor [2000] EWHC 453 (Ch); German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 163/02, 2005 GRUR pp. 431, 433 – HOTEL MARITIME.

  90. 90.

    Cf. Art. 28(1) Brussels Ibis Regulation.

  91. 91.

    Torremans (2014), pp. 386–387.

  92. 92.

    Cf. German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 163/02, 2005 GRUR p. 431 – HOTEL MARITIME.

  93. 93.

    Article 5 TMD; CJEU Case C-329/09 Interflora, EU:C:2011:859.

  94. 94.

    Supra 2.2.2.; Nupp (2003), pp. 652 et seq.

  95. 95.

    Articles 9(i), 10(i) WIPO (2001); Art. 4(a)(ii) UDRP (“rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name”). See also Stichting BDO v. BDO Unibank Inc. [2013] EWHC 418 (Ch), para. 190 (“Whether the defendant has a sufficient justification for using the sign complained of.”)

  96. 96.

    Article 6 s. 2 WIPO (2001).

  97. 97.

    German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 75/10, 2012 GRUR p. 621 para. 36 – Oscar.

  98. 98.

    See supra note 14.

  99. 99.

    CJEU Case C-228/03 The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy, EU:C:2005:177, para. 49; CJEU Case C-558/08 Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV, EU:C2010:416, para. 67; CJEU Case C-323/09 Interflora, EU:C:2011:604, para. 57.

  100. 100.

    Cf. ECJ Case C-245/02 Anheuser-Busch I, EU:C:2004:717, paras. 82 and 83; CJEU Case C-558/08 Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV, EU:C:2010:416, paras. 34–35, 67; CJEU Case C-329/09 Interflora, EU:C:2011:604, para. 44.

  101. 101.

    Cf. the jurisprudence of the ECJ concerning national unfair competition law as a proportionate limit to fundamental freedoms: ECJ Case 238/89 Pall, EU:C:1990:473, paras. 17 et seq.; ECJ Case 457/05 Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie, EU:C:2007:576, para. 27; Radeideh (2005), p. 29 et seq.

  102. 102.

    Cf. CJEU Case C-558/08 Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV, EU:C:2010:416, para. 69.

  103. 103.

    CJEU Case C-323/09 Interflora, EU:C:2011:604, para. 50. On U.S. law see Johnson (2014), p. 1296.

  104. 104.

    ECJ Case C-3/03 P Matratzen Concord, EU:C:2004:233, para. 28–29.

  105. 105.

    ECJ Case C-245/02, 16 November 2004 Anheuser-Busch I, EU:C:2004:717, para. 83; Stichting BDO v. BDO Unibank Inc. [2013] EWHC 418 (Ch), para. 188; Dudley v. Healthsource Chiropractic, Inc., 883 F. Supp. 2d 377, 391 (W.D.N.Y. 2012).

  106. 106.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs Case C-10/89 CNL-Sucal (“Hag II”), EU:C:1990:112, para. 22.

  107. 107.

    German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 75/10, 2012 GRUR p. 621 para. 36 – Oscar; Stichting BDO v. BDO Unibank Inc. [2013] EWHC 418 (Ch), para. 184.

  108. 108.

    Nupp (2003), p. 654.

  109. 109.

    Cf. Art. 2:604(1) CLIP Principles (2013).

  110. 110.

    See German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 23/02, 2005 GRUR Int. pp. 70–72 – Gazoz.

  111. 111.

    Glöckner and Kur (2014), p. 44; CJEU C-558/08 Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV, EU:C:2010:416, paras. 58, 62–63 (spare parts delivery).

  112. 112.

    Cf. Glöckner and Kur (2014), pp. 43–44; Nupp (2003), p. 663.

  113. 113.

    German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 163/02, 2005 GRUR p. 431 – HOTEL MARITIME.

  114. 114.

    ECJ Case C-245/02 Anheuser-Busch I, EU:C:2004:717, para. 83; Stichting BDO v. BDO Unibank Inc. [2013] EWHC 418 (Ch), para. 182; Art. 4(5)(c), 5(3)(b) WIPO (1999); see also Euromarket Designs Incorporated v Peters & Anor [2000] EWHC 453 (Ch), para. 40.

  115. 115.

    Stichting BDO v. BDO Unibank Inc. [2013] EWHC 418 (Ch), para. 191.

  116. 116.

    On the validity of respective division agreements under competition law, see Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs Case C-10/89 CNL-Sucal (Hag II), EU:C:1990:112, para. 62; Hamburg Regional Court Case 3 U 139/10, BeckRS 2014, 23186.

  117. 117.

    Cf. Art. 14(1) WIPO (2001).

  118. 118.

    Article 12, 14(2)(a)–(c) WIPO (2001); Flavor Corp. of America v. Kemin Industries, Inc., 503 F.2d 729 (8th Cir. 1974); German Federal Supreme Court Case I ZR 24/03, 2006 MMR pp. 461, 462 – Arzneimittelwerbung im Internet; Kur (2005), pp. 190–191; Nupp (2003), pp. 652–653, 655–656; but see WIPO (2011), para. 3.5 (the existence of a disclaimer cannot by itself cure bad faith).

  119. 119.

    See supra at fn. 69.

  120. 120.

    Grupo Gigante SA De CV v. Dallo & Co., Inc., 391 F.3d 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 2004) (“famous mark exception to the territoriality principle”). On national approaches to the protection of well-known marks see de Werra (2011).

  121. 121.

    See Art. 3:603(1) CLIP Principles (2013), and Kur (2013), Art. 3:603 CLIP Principles comment, fn. 8.

  122. 122.

    Correa (2007), pp. 189–190; Gervais (2012), para. 2.239; Malbon et al. (2014), para. 16.35; Art. 2 WIPO (1999); ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc., 482 F.3d 135, 153 et seq. (2nd Cir. 2007) (denying federal trade mark protection for foreign trade marks that are not used in the U.S.); ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc., 9 N.Y.3d 467, 476 (N.Y. 2007) (recognizing the protection of the goodwill of a foreign mark not used in New York from misappropriation under New York unfair competition law if consumers of the good or service provided under a certain mark by a defendant in New York primarily associate the mark with the foreign plaintiff); Grupo Gigante SA De CV v. Dallo & Co., Inc., 391 F.3d 1088, 1098 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Lockridge (2010), pp. 1362, 1413 (high standard of local knowledge of the famous mark required).

  123. 123.

    Schneider (1998), p. 467; Schmidt-Pfitzner and Schneider 2013, Art. 16 TRIPS para. 31 with further references; see also Kur (1999), p. 872 (creation of a kind of global “copyright” in well-known signs).

  124. 124.

    Swiss Federal Court BGE 130 III 267, 280–1 (referring to Art. 3(1) WIPO 1999).

  125. 125.

    Ibid.

  126. 126.

    Cf. Art. 4(1)(d) WIPO (1999) and explanatory notes to WIPO (1999), para. 3.2.

  127. 127.

    Article 2(c) and (d) WIPO (1999) and explanatory notes to WIPO (1999), para. 2.16 (WIPO members “may” protect well-known marks if these are merely known or even unknown among the local public). But see Art. 7 General Inter-American Convention for Trade-mark and Commercial Protection, 20 February 1929, 46 Stat. 2907 (right of the owner of any mark protected in a contracting state to challenge the use and registration of an interfering mark in another contracting state upon proof that the interfering party had knowledge of the existence and continuous use of the mark). See Farley (2014), p. 57 et seq.

  128. 128.

    See Art. 16(3) TRIPS (“… in respect of which a trade mark is registered …”); cf. Correa (2007), p. 192 et seq.; Gervais (2012), para. 2.240; Malbon et al. (2014), para. 16.39; Schmidt-Pfitzner and Schneider (2013), Art. 16 para. 39. But see Art. 4(1)(b) WIPO (1999); Schneider (1998), p. 469 (question has been left open). Contra Swiss Federal Court BGE 130 III 267, 284–5 without further explanation; Kunz-Hallstein (2015), p. 7 et seq.

  129. 129.

    See also Art. 4(1)(a) WIPO (1999).

  130. 130.

    The same is true with regard to “bad faith” registrations under Art. 6bis(3) PC; see ECJ Case C-529/07 Lindt & Sprüngli, EU:C:2009:361; Max Planck Study (2011), p. 84.

  131. 131.

    Consequently, model provisions on “ubiquitous infringements”, according to which such an infringement is subject only to the IP law of the State having the closest connection with the infringement (supra) do not apply to the infringement of well-known marks on the Internet; but see Kur (2013), Art. 3:603 CLIP Principles, comment, fn. 8.

  132. 132.

    See Otokoyama Co. Ltd. v. Wine of Japan Import, Inc., 175 F.3d 266, 270 et seq. (2nd Cir. 1999); Enrique Bernat F., S.A. v. Guadalajara, Inc., 210 F.3d 439, 445 (5th Cir. 2000); McCarthy (2014), § 12:41. On the different legal situation in the EU see supra 2.2.1.

  133. 133.

    Article 4(4)(c) TMD, 53(2) CTMR.

  134. 134.

    Article 3(1)(e)(i) TMD, 7(1)(e)(i) CTMR.

References

  1. AIPPI (2001) The use of trademarks and other signs on the internet. https://www.aippi.org/download/commitees/164/RS164English.pdf. Accessed 13 August 2015

  2. ALI Principles (2008) American Law Institute, intellectual property: principles governing jurisdiction, choice of law, and judgments in transnational disputes. ALI Institute Publishers, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beebe B (2004) The semiotic analysis of trade mark law. UCLA Law Rev 51:621–691

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bettinger T, Thum D (2000a) Territorial trademark rights in the global village—international jurisdiction, choice of law and substantive law for trademark disputes on the internet. IIC 31:162–182

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bettinger T, Thum D (2000b) Territorial trademark rights in the global village—international jurisdiction, choice of law and substantive law for trademark disputes on the internet. IIC 31:285–308

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bodenhausen G (1969) Guide to the application of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property as revised at Stockholm in 1967. WIPO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chander A (2009) Trade 2.0. Yale J Int Law 34:281–330

    Google Scholar 

  8. CLIP Principles (2013) European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP), Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property, the CLIP principles and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  9. Correa C (2007) Trade related aspects of intellectual property rights. A commentary on the TRIPS Agreement. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law, 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. De Werra J (2011) Well-known and famous trade marks. Université de Genève, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dinwoodie GB, Dreyfuss RC, Kur A (2009) The law applicable to secondary liability in intellectual property cases. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 42:201–325

    Google Scholar 

  13. Farley CH (2014) The Pan-American Trade Mark Convention of 1929: a bold vision of extraterritorial meets current realities. In: Lee E, Calboli I (eds) Trademark protection and territoriality challenges in a global economy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 57–76

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fawcett JJ, Torremans P (2011) Intellectual property and private international law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  15. Garnett RL (2005) Trade marks and the internet: resolution of international IP disputes by unilateral application of U.S. laws. Brook J Int Law 30:925–950

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gervais D (2012) The TRIPS Agreement: drafting history and analysis, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ginsburg J (1998) Private international law aspects of the protection of works and objects of related rights transmitted through digital networks, WIPO Doc. No. GCPIC/2. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/gcpic/gcpic_2.doc. Accessed 13 August 2015

  18. Glöckner J, Kur A (2014) Geschäftliche Handlungen im Internet. GRUR-Beilage, pp 29–52

  19. Goldsmith J (1998) Regulation of the internet: three persistent fallacies. Chic Kent Law Rev 73:1119–1131

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hoeren T (2007) Zoning und Geolocation – Technische Ansätze zu einer Reterritorialisierung des Internet. MMR 2007, pp 3–6

  21. Ingerl R, Rohnke C (2010) Markengesetz, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  22. Johnson S (2014) Trademark territoriality in cyberspace: an internet framework for common-law trade marks. Berkeley Technol Law J 29:1253–1299

    Google Scholar 

  23. King KF (2011) Personal jurisdiction, internet commerce, and privacy: the pervasive legal consequences of geolocation technologies. Albany Law J Sci Technol 21:61–124

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kunz-Hallstein (2015) Internationaler Schutz notorisch bekannter Marken nach Art. 6bis PVÜ und Art. 16 Abs. 2 und 3 TRIPS im Lichte des Beschlusses der WIPO-Generalversammlung vom 29.9.1999. GRUR Int 2015, pp 7–12

  25. Kur A (1999) Die WIPO-Vorschläge zum Schutz notorisch bekannter und berühmter Marken. GRUR 1999, pp 866–875

  26. Kur (2005) Trade mark conflicts on the internet: territoriality redefined. In: Basedow J, Drexl J, Kur A, Metzger A (eds) Intellectual property in the conflict of laws. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 175–193

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kur A (2013) In: European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP), Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property, the CLIP principles and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  28. Kur A (2014) Trade marks function, don’t they? CJEU jurisprudence and unfair competition principles. IIC 46:434–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lemley M, Dogan S (2007) Grounding trade mark law through trade mark use. Iowa Law Rev 92:1669–1701

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lockridge LA (2010) Honoring international obligations in U.S. trademark law: how the Lanham Act protects well-known foreign marks (and why the second circuit was wrong). St John’s Law Rev 84:1347–1413

    Google Scholar 

  31. Malbon J, Lawson C, Davison M (2014) The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. A commentary. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  32. Max Planck Study (2011) Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Munich, Study on the overall functioning of the European trade mark system. http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/aktuelles/trade_mark_study.html. Accessed 13 August 2015

  33. McCarthy JT (2014) McCarthy on trademarks and unfair competition, 4th edn. Database updated Dec 2014. Thomson Reuters, New York

  34. Nupp R (2003) Concurrent use of trademarks on the internet: reconciling the concept of geographically delimited trademarks with the reality of the internet. Ohio State Law J 64:617–665

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ohly A (2005) Choice of law in the digital environment—problems and possible solutions. In: Drexl J, Kur A (eds) Intellectual property and private international law—heading for the future. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 241–256

    Google Scholar 

  36. Peukert A (2012a) Die Gemeinfreiheit. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  37. Peukert A (2012b) Territoriality and extraterritoriality in intellectual property law. In: Handl G, Zekoll J, Zumbansen P (eds) Beyond territoriality: transnational legal authority in an age of globalization. Brill, Leiden, pp 189–228

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Peukert A (2013) In: European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP), Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property, the CLIP principles and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  39. Pflüger M (2015) In: Cottier T, Véron P (eds) Concise international and European IP law. TRIPS, Paris Convention, European enforcement and transfer of technology, 3rd edn. Kluwer Law International, New York

  40. Pichler R (2008) Internationale Zuständigkeit im Zeitalter globaler Vernetzung. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  41. Radeideh M (2005) Fair trading in EC law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rehbinder M, Peukert A (2015) Urheberrecht, 17th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  43. Reidenberg JR (2005) Technology and internet jurisdiction. Univ Pa Law Rev 153:1951–1974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schmidt-Pfitzner JH, Schneider M (2013) In: Busche J, Stoll P-T, Wiebe A (eds) TRIPS. Internationales und europäisches Recht des geistigen Eigentums, 2d edn. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln

  45. Schneider M (1998) Die notorische Marke: Entstehung eines neuen Markentyps im internationalen Recht und ihre Konsequenzen für das schweizerische Markenrecht. GRUR Int 1998:461–470

    Google Scholar 

  46. Schultz T, Ridi N (2015) Comity and international courts and tribunals. Forthcoming, on file with the author

  47. Svantesson DJB (2004) Geo-location technologies and other means of placing borders on the ‘borderless’ internet. J. Marshall J Comput Inf Law 23:101–139

    Google Scholar 

  48. Svantesson DJB (2007) “Imagine there’s no countries”: geo-identification, the law, and the not-so-borderless internet. J Internet Law 10(9):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  49. Torremans P (2014) Jurisdiction in intellectual property cases. In: Torremans (ed) Research handbook on cross-border enforcement of intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 381–420

    Google Scholar 

  50. Trimble M (2012) The future of cybertravel: legal implications of the evasion of geolocation. Fordham Intell Prop Media Entertain Law J 22:567–657

    Google Scholar 

  51. UDRP (1999) Uniform domain name dispute resolution policy. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en. Accessed 13 August 2015

  52. USPTO (2015) United States patent and trade mark office, trade mark manual of examining procedure. http://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/TMEP/current/d1e2.xml. Accessed 13 August 2015

  53. Wichard JC (2005) The joint recommendation concerning protection of marks, and other industrial property rights in signs, on the internet. In: Drexl J, Kur A (eds) Intellectual property and private international law—heading for the future. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 257–264

    Google Scholar 

  54. Winkelmüller M, Kessler H-W (2009) Territorialisierung von Internet-Angeboten – Technische Möglichkeiten, völker-, wirtschaftsverwaltungs- und ordnungsrechtliche Aspekte, GewArch, pp 181–183

  55. WIPO (1999) WIPO joint recommendation concerning provisions on the protection of well-known marks. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/marks/833/pub833.pdf. Accessed 13 August 2015

  56. WIPO (2001) WIPO joint recommendation concerning provisions on the protection of marks, and other industrial property rights in signs, on the internet (with Explanatory Notes). http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/marks/845/pub845.pdf. Accessed 13 August 2015

  57. WIPO (2011) WIPO overview of WIPO panel views on selected UDRP questions, 2nd edn. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0. Accessed 13 August 2015

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Peukert.

Additional information

This article greatly benefited from many discussions with Matthias C. Kettemann and from comments made by Lee A. Bygrave, Christine Farley, Christian Heinze, Annette Kur, Marketa Trimble, Thomas Schultz, Dan Svantesson, Stefan Völker and other participants of a workshop funded by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt/Germany. The views expressed in this article are the responsibility of the author alone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peukert, A. The Coexistence of Trade Mark Laws and Rights on the Internet, and the Impact of Geolocation Technologies. IIC 47, 60–86 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-015-0427-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Trade mark law
  • Internet
  • Jurisdiction
  • Applicable law
  • Choice of law
  • Geolocation