TRADEMARK USE
In the well-known Bainbridge decision dating from 2007 (C-234/06), the Court of Justice for the EU (CJEU) decided in an obiter dictum that it is not admissible to extend the protection afforded to a registered mark by virtue of the proof of use thereof, to a different mark which has been registered but not used, on the grounds that the latter mark is merely a slightly altered form of the former mark. Te question to be clarified in this instance was whether it is possible to use a word/figurative mark ‘Bridge’ by proving the use of the word mark ‘Te Bridge’.
Although the CJEU merely expressed an opinion on the interpretation of Article 15(2)(a) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR), the court itself pointed out that the content of this provision is identical to that of Article 10(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive; the same therefore
applies to the provision in Section 26(3) of the German Trade Mark Act. Tere is consistency between Section 26(3)(1) of the German Trade Mark Act and Article 15(2)(a) CTMR; Section 26(3)(2) of the German Trade Mark Act, however, has no equivalent in European law.
According to this German provision, a genuine use of a mark by the use of a sign differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark is also permitted when the mark is also registered in the used form. Tis led to a discussion in the German literature about the compatibility of the German provision with EU law.
Te CJEU now has the opportunity to define the scope of its rulings on the Bainbridge decision,
88 World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2012
in its answer to two questions from the German Court of Justice.
The Proti case
In this matter (decision of August 17, 2011 ZR 84/09) the German Court of Justice referred the interpretation of Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC to the CJEU and, in particular, asked for a decision on whether Section 26(3)(2) of the German Trade Mark Act is consistent with it. While the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had not genuinely used the mark ‘Proti’, the plaintiff asserted use of the mark based on use of the registered marks ‘Proti Power’ and ‘Proti Plus’. Tis would be admissible under German law, but is now uncertain following the CJEU’s Bainbridge decision.
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