COMMUNITY TRADEMARK
THE
COMMUNITY TRADEMARK: WHAT NEXT?
The European Commission has released proposals to update the law on Community trademarks. Maggie Ramage looks at the key points.
Te European Commission has proposed that the regulation on Community trademarks (CTMs) be revised, and for the directive to approximate the laws of the member states relating to trademarks. Tis is the first big change for many years, and we need to get it right. Te intention is to streamline and modernise the system, to make the registration system more accessible and efficient, to make it less complex and cheaper, to provide increased speed, and to allow for greater predictability, as well as legal certainty.
Te Max Planck Institute produced a study back in 2011. Tis opened the general debate among users of the system. Studies are also ongoing within the Office for Harmonization in the Internal market (OHIM), to look at the contribution of IP to the general economy, and its impact upon society throughout the EU.
A number of interested bodies, who use the system extensively, such as the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (ITMA), Business Europe, the European Brands Association (AIM), APRAM and GRUR (the sister organisations to ITMA in France and Germany), the European Communities Trade
Mark Association (ECTA) and the International Trademark Association (INTA), have submitted comments on the proposals this year.
I concentrate upon some, although not all, of the points raised by my own institute, ITMA, and these are also my own views. ITMA is a member of OHIM’s User Group, which meets regularly, and exchanges information with the other groups mentioned above, including the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the UK IP Office (IPO), and other national registries as well as the commission.
Generally, ITMA welcomes the decision to review the CTM directive and regulations, but some areas do need clarification.
Clarification needed
First, I believe that we should not use the term ‘European’, as not all European countries are actually members of
Norway, in particular). EU has a more specific meaning, and is the appropriate term to be used.
I believe there should be a trademark registration system which allows registrants to choose national
80 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013 the EU (Switzerland and
and/or whole of EU protection for their IP rights. Particularly in these recessionary times, national IP protection is still important, especially for smaller and start-up companies, and individual registrants. Tis has been shown in the UK recently, where national filing figures have shown an increase: in 2012, there was an 8 percent increase in UK trademark filings over the previous year. Terefore, harmonisation between national and CTM systems is essential, to allow for complete freedom of choice by the registrant.
We need more certainty in defining different types of marks, and need to amend Article 3 of the directive and Article 4 of the regulation, to allow for better representation of marks, and therefore legal certainty, particularly for non-traditional marks. Te proposed amendments may not be interpreted with a harmonised view throughout the EU. Why, for example, are sound marks included in the proposals, but not ‘smell’ marks? Definition of such marks should obviously be clear, precise, easily accessible, objective, and durable. Concise codification is essential, so that these rights are generally understood.
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