SWITZERLAND
SWITZERLAND
Te competent authority should refrain from granting global injunctions. However, the provision does not completely exclude prohibitions of use, which can be justified in cases of bad-faith use, such as cybersquatting. Te joint recommendation contemplates a general exclusion of global injunctions in situations in which users do not act in bad faith and if they either hold a right in that sign themselves, or are otherwise permitted to use the sign on the Internet in the way that they use it.
Possible new standards for the presence of secondary liability of Internet intermediaries
Almost 10 years after the adoption of the joint recommendation, the Internet has provided countless new ways for ingenious businesses and individuals to refer to trademarks in a manner that affects the trademark holder’s business. Tese new methods may not directly associate a mark with goods or services that the user is offering for sale and may even be hidden from a consumer’s view. Practices such as the unauthorised use of trademarks as keywords by search engine operators or within listings for non-genuine goods on auction sites, or the use of trademarks on virtual objects that are traded in virtual worlds, constitute clear challenges to the traditional application of trademark law.
Recently, a significant number of cases have been brought before national and regional courts. In deciding those cases, courts have resorted to trademark law principles, oſten in combination with other statutory laws that regulate electronic commerce or intellectual property (IP) enforcement. Solutions differ from one jurisdiction to another. Tese new challenges regarding the use of trademarks on the Internet include the liability of Internet auction sites for trademark infringement, search engines for the sale of trademarks as keywords, and trademark infringement in virtual worlds and social media.
Te patterns in recent cases regarding the use of trademarks on the Internet generally involve three categories of actors: (i) trademark holders; (ii) Internet intermediaries, such as operators of Internet auction sites, search engines, virtual worlds and social media; and (iii) users of the services that are offered by Internet intermediaries.
Trademark holders have argued that Internet intermediaries and users should be held liable for acts that allegedly constitute trademark infringement (primary or direct liability of Internet intermediaries and services users), or that Internet intermediaries should be held liable for the acts of the users of their services that allegedly constitute trademark infringement (secondary or indirect liability of Internet intermediaries).
230 World Intellectual Property Review e-Digest 2012
Te WIPO secretariat finds in its analysis that the joint recommendation addresses types of trademark uses on the Internet to a certain extent. However, while the concept of commercial effect is relevant for the purposes of the new forms of use of a sign that are made possible by technological advances, the notice and avoidance of conflict procedure and the remedies set out in the joint recommendation do not address the types of trademark uses on the Internet.
Additionally, the provisions of the joint recommendation do not address certain other issues, such as the liability of Internet intermediaries, that arise with regard to the current types of trademark uses on the Internet.
While the secretariat correctly assumes that the development of agreed standards with respect to the primary liability of Internet intermediaries for the infringement of third-party trademarks may present considerable difficulties due to the differences in the substantive trademark laws of national and regional jurisdictions, and that due consideration should be given to the rapidly changing nature of the Internet and the number of Internet intermediaries that are present on it, any solution may quickly become outdated.
Te secretariat suggests that the SCT should consider developing agreed standards for determining the presence or absence of secondary liability. Tese standards should offer an opportunity for stakeholders to achieve a degree of legal and transactional predictability, through developing safe harbour provisions, for example. Consideration could be given to issues such as the role that is played by the Internet intermediary in relation to alleged trademark infringement, the degree of knowledge and control by the Internet intermediary with respect to the allegedly infringing activity by a user of its services, and the modalities of any response by the Internet intermediary when informed of such activity.
Jürg Burger is counsel with Badertscher Rechtsanwälte AG. He can be contacted at:
burger@b-legal.ch
Jürg M. Burger is a Swiss attorney focusing on all aspects of trademark law. He advises small and medium sized enterprises as well as multinational corporations on the acquisition, protection and enforcement of trademark rights.
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 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256 |
Page 257 |
Page 258 |
Page 259 |
Page 260 |
Page 261 |
Page 262 |
Page 263 |
Page 264 |
Page 265 |
Page 266 |
Page 267 |
Page 268 |
Page 269 |
Page 270 |
Page 271