INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
Use by One Nation is the Trustee of Posterity?
Geographically limited use of a CTM in the EU?
Dr. Áron LÁSZLÓ
Hungary – SBGK Law Firm
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
The Issue• Is the use of a CTM in one Member State
sufficient to defend against non-use?– Yes– No– Well, it depends…
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
The Law• 10/12/1993 CTM Regulation (+ historical):
– 40/94 EC Art. 15 „the proprietor has not put the CTM to genuine use in the Community”
• 22/10/1995 Joint Declaration:– “The Council and the Commission consider that genuine use in the
sense of Article 15 in a single country constitutes genuine use in the Community”
– C-292/89 Antonissen case – on declarations– C-418/02 Praktiker – on the Joint Declaration
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
OHIM• current OHIM Manual & Guidelines
– Genuine use within the meaning of Article 15 CTMR may be found also when the criteria of that article have been complied with in only one part of the Community, such as in a single Member State or in a part thereof.
– The sufficiency of use in only a part of the Community is reflected in the Joint Statements by the Council and the Commission
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
The ECJ• No actual jurisdiction on the subject yet• Ansul (C-40/01)
– On the concept of genuine use
• La Mer (C-259/02)– A single agent in a single member state may be just fine
• Hiwatt (T-39/01)– „the mark must be present in a substantial part of the territory
where it is protected”
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
The ECJ• Pago (C-301/07)
– Is a CTM protected in the whole Community as a “trade mark with a reputation” if it has a “reputation” only in one Member State?
– a CTM must be known by a significant part of the public concerned by the products or services, in a substantial part of the territory of the Community
– „the territory of the MS in question [Austria] may be considered to constitute a substantial part of the territory of the Community”
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
The ECJ• DHL vs. Chronopost (C-235/09)
– Case pending before ECJ
– Injunction based on a CTM awarded by a CTM court with jurisdiction to the entire Community should be limited to where infringement has been actually established?
– Language, culture, reputation
– Advocate General (Cruz Villalón): geographic scope of an injunction should correspond with the geographic extent of the infringement
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
The Dissenters• 15/01/2010 – Benelux, „ONEL”
– use only in the Netherlands not sufficient
• 11/02/2010 – Hungary, „C City Hotel” – use only in part of the UK and in the
Internet not sufficient – no to automatism
• 05/03/2010 – Denmark, announcement– use in a very limited part of the Community seems not to fulfill the purpose
and the intentions of the CTMR
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
Pros and Cons I.Pro ONEL
• CTM not to replace national marks
• Coexistence preferred• CTM designed for firms with
commercial activity on Community level
• Conversion• 12 >>> 27 MSs
Contra ONEL• CTMs and national marks
happily coexist• Marks coexist• Firms may not be able to
assess their success at the beginning
• No clear, concrete, pratical options so far
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
Pros and Cons II.Pro ONEL
• Use in Malta vs use in Germany
• Use in Estonia and Latvia vs use in Germany
Contra ONEL• Unitary character• Market boundaries vs State
boundaries• Depending on product also (e.g.
pálinka)• „Genuine use” concepts leaves
ground for interpretation
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
Pros and Cons III.Pro ONEL
• Unnecessary CTMs
• Clearance frustrating
• Fees vs value
• Hinders the free movement of goods
• Disadvantegous for SMEs focusing on one MS
• Inter-state use in US
Contra ONEL• Choice b/w national TMs and
CTM• Facilitates movement from MS
>>> EU • Ensures priority for future
expansion• EU-wide enforcement cheaper• Maintenance easier
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
Pros and Cons IV.Pro ONEL
• Applicant has 5 years to decide if will use CTM in the EU (CTM provides for priority)
• If not used inter-state for 5 years, no use defending
• Plays into the hands of competitors
• Art. 112(2)(a)
Contra ONEL• CTM applicants stimulate unity of
EU• Applicant uncertain wheather will
use CTM in EU must register a national TM
• Plays into the hands of national TM offices
• Diff. requirements
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
The Latest in ONEL• The Court of Appeal of the Hage proposed a request for
preliminary ruling (30.11.2010)• Taking into account the decisions of the Court of Justice in the cases Ansul, La Mer Technoloty and
Sunrider, for the moment the court is of the opinion that “genuine use” is a autonomous concept, that the territorial scope of such use is only one of the factors to be taken into account when assessing whether the (prior) mark has been genuinely used for the goods or services in question and that the required territorial scope of the use of the Community trademark does not need to correspond with the territory of all member states of the Community, and also that use in only one member state does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that genuine use in the Community is out of the question.
• The court is of the opinion that from this (the preambles of the CTMR), different from what Hagelkruis argues, it follows that according to the CTMR primacy is with the Community trademark but that there remains room for national marks
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
The Latest in ONEL• Questions to the ECJ proposed by the Court of Appeal
of the Hage proposed:
1. Should article 15(1) CTM be interpreted in such a way that the use of a trade mark within the borders of one Member State is sufficient, provided that this use, if the trade mark would be a national trade mark, would be considered to be normal use in that Member State (compare Joint Statement Nr. 10 to Article 15 CTM original version and the Opposition Guidelines)
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
The Latest in ONEL:2. If no, is use within one Member State never normal use within the EC
as referred to in article 15 CTM? If yes, which requirements are applicable with regard to the territorial scope of the use of a trade mark – apart from the other circumstances – to assess a normal use within the Community?
3. If the answer to question 1 should be in the negative, should the assessment of normal use within the Community be abstracted from the borders of the territory of the separate Member States and solely linked up with the market shares of the trade mark (and/or other factors) on the various markets within the Community?
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
The Most Recent Case• Euprax Perchtold & Partners vs. ZOBU B.V. (Case Nr.:
310347 / HA ZA 08-1452)• Infringement proceedings before the court in the Hague• Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity for non-use • use only in Germany• Proceedings stayed pending decision in ONEL
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
The Latest• Max Planck Study
– Study on the functioning of the European Trade Mark systems– To be published only partly– Impact study to be published only in autumn along with
amendment proposals
• Discussion in EU Parliament (21.09.2010)– Infringement proceedings against dissenters?
• Hungarian EU Presidency in the first half of 2011
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
The Solution?• ECJ ruling or express legislation needed• Max Planck study much awaited• Proposed solutions:
– One member state is sufficient– Geographical / market approach– Inter-state commerce needed– 1 MS in the first 5y, 2 MSs in the first 10y– Blend of the above
Top Related