UK
Lee Curtis and Chris Benson
Harrison Goddard Foote
A YEAR of
ConsoLIDAtIon
2009 will perhaps be remembered as a year in which existing IP laws “Th e advantage arising from the use by a third party of a sign similar to a
were clarified and solidified in the UK rather than a year of landmark mark with a reputation is an advantage taken unfairly by that third party of
cases that changed the playing field. But it was still an important year the distinctive character or the repute of the mark where that party seeks
for owners of IP. by that use to ride on the coat-tails of the mark with a reputation in order
to benefi t from the power of attraction, the reputation and the prestige of
Th e themes of ‘reputation’ and ‘aura of luxury’ dominated trademark case
that mark and to exploit, without paying any fi nancial compensation, the
law in 2009, although regarding patents, the year can be viewed as one of
marketing eff ort expended by the proprietor of the mark in order to create
consolidation rather than ‘stand-out’ cases. In 2009, the courts sought to
and maintain the mark’s image.”
refi ne the reasoning of previous judgments, but the year also saw changes
to the structure of the UK’s court system and proposals for reform of the
A prerequisite for infringement to be held is that an economic link must
Patents County Court.
be established in the minds of the purchasing public between the sign and
the registered trademark. However, the mere establishment of a link is not
Last year marked in many ways the renaissance of the enhanced protection
suffi cient for infringement to be held. For infringement to be held, the use
of reputable trademarks. In November 2008, Intel Corporation v. CPM
of the infringing sign must in some way benefi t from the attractive force of
United Kingdom signalled to many that the protection aff orded to reputable
the registered trademark for free. No confusion needs to be proven in the
trademarks was not as wide as previously thought. In order to be detrimental
marketplace, and therefore this decision has far-reaching implications for
to the distinctive character of a reputable registered trademark, the use
so-called lookalike brands.
of a potentially infringing sign had to aff ect the economic behaviour of
consumers. Such a test was viewed as a high hurdle indeed to overcome.
Th e issue of ‘reputation’ in a diff erent form was explored in Copad SA v.
Christian Dior Couture. Th e single market provides for the parallel trade
However, the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in L’Oréal
of branded goods across the European Free Trade Area, unless there are
v. Bellure handed down in June 2009 again suggested that if a trader is legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further dealings in the
eff ectively riding on the coat-tails of a market leader, then infringement will goods, in particular, where the condition of the goods has been changed or
be found, even if consumers are not confused. impaired aft er they have been put on the market.
Th e L’Oréal case essentially dealt with the issue of taking unfair advantage of Traditionally, any possible impairment to the goods in question was viewed
a reputable trademark. In that decision, the court held that: in a physical sense. However, the ECJ found in the Copad case that sales of
158 World Intellectual Property Review Digest 2009 www.worldipreview.com
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173