JURISDICTION REPORT: HUNGARY
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF PAST USE OF A NON-REGISTERED MARK
Michael Lantos and Dr Judit Lantos Danubia Patent & Law Office and Sár & Partners
Te requirement of genuine use is assessed strictly in both national and European trademark practice. Use without registration can also provide certain rights to the users. In two recent Hungarian landmark cases the actual earlier uses of respective non-registered marks have proved to be key components before the courts.
According to Article 8 (5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR) in an opposition proceeding based on an earlier trademark, the opposed mark shall not be registered where it is identical with, or similar to the earlier trademark, where this trademark has a reputation in the Community and where the use without due cause of the mark applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark.
In both cases respective opposition proceedings were launched against fairly recent trademark applications, where the applicants had actually used their marks years before the filing dates of their corresponding marks. Te opponents had famous trademarks with earlier registration dates in different classes of goods. Te key question which had to be decided by the court lay in whether the actual non-registered earlier use was with or without due cause and whether that use had any adverse effect on the fame of the opponent’s trademarks.
In the first case, the applicant stated and proved that its opposed mark has been continuously and intensively used for 14 years in the relevant market for goods that were different from the opponent’s goods. Te applicant also proved that he was once the proprietor of a word trademark registration identical to the opposed mark that had expired because of the lack of renewal. Also, he was the owner of a further device trademark also containing the disputed word element.
Te case went up to the Supreme Court, which finally decided in favour of the applicant, finding that the goods were different and that the earlier owner had not opposed the later trademarks. Te Supreme Court stated that since the applicant was using his mark, this use should be considered as use with due cause. In this decision the different nature of the goods and the passive behaviour of the opponent through 14 years was also taken into account.
In the second case, the applicant company stated that the opposed mark had been used by its predecessor company without registration for decades. Although the applicant was able to present some evidence with regard to the use of the same mark between 1989 and 1999, he couldn’t prove any later use. In the light of this, as the earlier actual use referred to by the applicant was suspended for more than an uninterrupted period of five years (namely for almost 15 years), the Metropolitan Tribunal could not accept the legal relevance of such earlier actual use, therefore the trademark application was rejected.
“THE METROPOLITAN TRIBUNAL CLEARLY STATED THAT IF A MARK HAS NOT BEEN ACTUALLY USED FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, THIS FACT ALONE CONSTITUTES A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR CANCELLATION.”
Te Metropolitan Tribunal clearly stated that if a mark has not been actually used for more than five years, this fact alone constitutes a sufficient basis for cancellation. In the present case the proven non-registered earlier use constituted a much weaker right and had no effect aſter an interval of more than five years. Te legal consequences of non-use must be applied also for non-registered trademarks.
Terefore an applicant is expected to be able to prove actual use of the mark at least going back five years from the date of the opposition, if he relies on his actual earlier use as a circumstance under which he could be exempted from the legal consequences of an opposition. Use prior to that period has no legal relevance.
Te curiosity of this second case was that the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office first rejected the opposition by referring to the aforementioned Supreme Court decision, as according to the office the Supreme Court stated that if the applicant had actually been using his mark earlier then it was a use with due cause. Te tribunal accepted the opponent’s counter-arguments that each case had to be evaluated in its entirety and that the office misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s decision by taking only part of it and overlooking the long passive period aſter the past use. A past use can be relevant only if it is uninterrupted.
Michael Lantos is deputy managing partner and Hungarian and European patent attorney at Danubia Patent and Law Office LLC. He can be contacted at:
lantos@danubia.hu
Dr Judit Lantos is an attorney at law and partner at Sár & Partners and Danubia Patent & Law Office. She can be contacted at:
judit.lantos@
danubia.hu
172 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013
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