TRADEMARK SEARCHES
full class headings before OHIM, results in a messy community trademark (CTM) register littered with clashing marks. It is a classic, but utterly unforgivable, mistake for an advisor to give comfort on the basis that, as there is a large number of conflicting and similar third party marks, it will be fine for the client to add, and use, another one. Te legal reality is, of course, that the risk is simply multiplied. Getting this wrong can lead to considerable discomfort and cost for both attorney and client.
Another complicating factor for companies wishing to launch and do business in the EU is the fact that they have to navigate not only registered rights at the EU level, but also national registrations and national unregistered rights across 27 different countries. Unfortunately, the maxim that ‘in the EU we have harmonisation in 27 different ways’ rings somewhat true, the result being that it is difficult to assess risk across borders in the EU to any meaningful extent without a significant budget.
Faced with this, many companies manage their spend by obtaining full availability searches only for the most important EU country (or countries), which would include CTMs and also international registrations designating the CTM and the specific country, and then taking their chances on the basis of less sophisticated searches or no searches at all in respect of national rights in other EU countries.
Device marks add another dimension in the EU due to the ability to register graphical works as designs. Tis means that any clearance search for a device mark in the EU must include the community design register, the UK designs register, and any other similar registers in the EU—a hazardous task given the limited tools available for searching designs and given also the system of classification, in which it is the applicant who chooses the class and subclass into which the design will go, but where the class/ subclass under which a design is registered is unimportant for questions of infringement.
Because design searches are carried out and paid for by reference to class and sub-class, there is little real choice when searching for prior designs but to rely on the judgment of prior design right holders when they selected their class—unless one wishes to incur the time and expense of searching across every class.
Te trademark register in the US is much more reliable given the scope for relative grounds refusals by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and use requirements for maintaining registrations. China also has a system of relative
insufficiently informed assessments. It is important to keep in mind that an initial screening search is just that, and no substitute for a comprehensive search and review, with considered professional advice.
grounds objections, although unfortunately for English language marks in China, it seems that descriptive words forming part of a mark can be given trademark significance. Consider a recent case in which a mark applied for in China included the word ‘Original’, and a third party mark for the descriptive word Original (without any other distinctive element) was cited as the basis for a refusal. It can be difficult to overcome such a blow without consent from the owner of the cited mark.
As Chinese registrations become vulnerable to non-use attacks aſter only three years, and as the evidential burden is on the trademark owner to prove use if a revocation action is filed, one tactic in China is to file revocation actions against appropriate potential blocking third party marks at the time of filing a new application. A letter of consent is then sought from the owner of the third party mark; if it is given the revocation action is withdrawn. Provided it is approached carefully, this does not need to be perceived as an unsolicited act of aggression.
Tools, resources and liability
The Internet brings with it an increasing number of tools for searching, many free of charge. National IP offices continue to move their databases online for all to access. The TMView project in the EU, funded by OHIM, which already links to the databases of 17 member states plus OHIM and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), is becoming ever more useful; so much so that after a little training, companies can now do much of the initial screening work themselves. However, access to all and ease of operability brings its own issues, including the risk of overly simplistic searches and
66 World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2012
www.worldipreview.com
In fact, comprehensive reviews should always be discussed, even if they are, ultimately, decided against by the client. Even when a client simply asks its trademark lawyer to file an application and does not request clearance searches at all, the lawyer’s duty (in the UK, in any event), which is to highlight risks to enable the client to avoid or reduce those risks, still extends to advising in relation to all legal pitfalls reasonably connected with that application including, therefore, possible infringement risk. Te reality is, of course, that these legal duties of care only correspond with what ought always to be good practice in enabling a prospective brand owner to make informed decisions.
Working together
What it comes down to in the end is mutual trust and effective two-way communication. It is crucial that (i) the practitioner understands what his or her client is seeking to achieve and is sensitive to any internal dynamics; (ii) the client is educated as to what is involved in clearing a mark and how problems might manifest themselves; (iii) client decisions as to the level of searching are informed ones; and (iv) the trademark lawyer and client work together as a team. All of this will enable the client to select the brand, protect it, and then build the desired value in it. n
Leigh Martin is a partner at Clarion Solicitors. He can be contacted at:
leigh.martin@
clarionsolicitors.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