TRADEMARK USE
irrelevant. In the opinion of the German Court of Justice, however, a genuine use of the mark as a component sign of a used combination mark can also be used as a basis in this case. It supports the genuine use of the position mark by the combined mark that a mark can acquire distinctiveness within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 89/104/EEC through use as a component of a registered mark without the mark which is to be registered having been used independently (CJEU, judgment of July 7, 2005, C-353/09).
his registered mark to the circumstances of the time and to develop it within the boundaries permitted by Section 26(3)(1) of the German Trade Mark Act and Article 10(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive. However, if it were not possible for the trademark owner to put both its marks—the originally registered mark and the modernised registered mark—to genuine use by using the developed registered form, it would lose the priority of the earlier mark.
In the opinion of the German Court of Justice, Section 26(3)(2) of the German Trade Mark Act is consistent with Article 10(2)(2) of the Trade Marks Directive. Tis should not apply when a single mark is used and other unused marks are registered simply to extend the scope of protection, which is the case with so-called defensive marks. Te court substantiates its opinion on the basis that, by using a sign as a trademark, more than a single registered mark is being put to genuine use. Te compatibility is also substantiated in that the requirement of genuine use is intended to reduce the number of marks registered in the EU and, therefore, the number of potential conflicts.
Te German Court of Justice also rightly points out that the requirement of genuine use is not intended to destroy, without a compelling reason, the economic value inherent in earlier marks, nor to prevent the mark owner from developing and modernising his existing mark. It is very beneficial for the mark owner to adapt
www.worldipreview.com
If the new, developed mark is not registered, however, there is a risk that this new mark will fall outside the boundaries of Section 26(3)(1) of the German Trade Mark Act and Article 10(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive. Accordingly, the original mark will then be lost through lack of use and the new mark will not be protected by registration.
The ‘clothing tabs II’ case
In this instance (decision of November 24, 2011 I ZR 206/10), the German Court of Justice referred Article 15(1) of Council Regulation No. 40/1994 of December 20, 1993 on the CTMR to the CJEU for interpretation. In this case, the plaintiff attempted to substantiate the use of a registered mark (red tab on a pocket) by using it in combination with a further mark (word mark ‘Levi’s’). Te combined form, which was actually used exclusively, is also registered as a trademark. Te defendant therefore challenged the use of the position mark and declared that only the registered combined mark was used.
Te difference from the Proti decision was that the combined mark and the position mark do not differ from one another solely in component parts which do not affect the distinctiveness of the marks. Article 15(2)(a) CTMR is therefore
World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2012 89
Te German Court of Justice pointed out that the trademark owner’s interest in effective enforcement of its marks needs to be taken into account. It would also like to allow registration of individual components of a combined mark, which are recognised by the market as an independent characteristic. If the trademark owner enjoys separate protection under trademark law for a component of a combined sign, there will be a greater similarity and likelihood of confusion if the component is found in a similar, or identical, form in the conflicting sign.
In both decisions, the German Court of Justice states that it deems the Bainbridge decision of the CJEU to be applicable only in cases of inadmissible defensive marks. Te CJEU’s response to the two questions referred for a preliminary ruling is therefore eagerly awaited, as this is the CJEU’s first opportunity to define the scope of its 2007 decision. It is hoped that the CJEU will provide clarification to the effect that its decision is to be restricted to inadmissible defensive trademarks. n
Anna Falter, German Rechtsanwältin, is head of trademarks Germany at Dennemeyer & Associates in Munich. She can be contacted at:
afalter@dennemeyer-law.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