COMMUNITY TRADEMARK
As for classification of goods and services, certainty is clearly needed. We need transitional provisions, to allow registrants to clarify what were their intentions at the time of filing—were all goods or services in a given class intended at the outset? Will we have a reasonable time frame to amend specifications, once the registrations are implemented? Should this be six, or 12, months, to allow the administrative and cost burden to be undertaken by registrants, their attorneys, and the relevant IP offices?
I believe that a four-month period to do this is far too short. Indeed, why should applicants have to claim ‘all goods or services’? Why penalise an applicant if its technology is new, and therefore specific wording is required for its mark in that new technology?
Allowing national offices to refuse applications where grounds for refusal exist in other member states, say on language grounds, is a real concern. Tis would place a huge administrative burden on an applicant, who would have to consider how that mark would be viewed throughout the whole of the EU. Tis could increase costs up front, by requiring extensive research before a mark is filed, and I believe it would be unworkable practically.
Acknowledgement of acquired distinctiveness
aſter the application date but before registration, cannot be condoned. Te acquired distinctiveness should be at application date. Allowing acquired distinctiveness up to registration could lead to considerable uncertainty in the process, and in my view, could lead to speculative filings.
For relative grounds, the ex officio search carried out now is of limited help, as it gives the picture of the register ‘aſter the event’, ie, aſter an application has been filed. Te potential problem, though, is that abolition altogether of this search may lead to abolition of prior rights searches by national offices, when marks are examined. Notification of applications to earlier rights holders, eg, as happens in the UK, is particularly helpful, especially for smaller registrants, but also for larger corporations who perhaps cannot afford to watch their entire trademark portfolio.
In cases where an application is filed for a mark not yet in use, this information of earlier rights can lead to a strategy re-think, and possibly even abandoning plans, and therefore abandoning an application to protect and use the mark. Being forewarned can be being forearmed, to avoid expensive litigation later.
For marks which have a reputation, these should be entitled to protection, regardless of whether the subsequent mark is used on goods and services which are identical/similar/ dissimilar to those for which the earlier mark is registered.
www.worldipreview.com
Opposition and cancellation actions should be available in a fast and inexpensive way. National offices should be able to provide these actions.
Non-use, as a defence in such actions, should be available in all opposition or
cancellation
proceedings based upon a registration more than five years old. Te process should be simple. If the owner does not show evidence of use, then the mark in question should be removed. Tis must help to overcome the long-term clutter of the register.
I support clarification where use of a company and trading name, and in comparative advertising, can amount to infringement. However, ITMA is concerned by the possible removal of bona fide own name defence. Can you make an arbitrary distinction between personal and company names?
For prevention of goods entering the EU, could we have a defence if the importer can show that he owns the mark in question in the country where the goods will be circulated, and show that the goods are only intended for marketing there, and those goods would not be released for free circulation before arrival in the destination country?
Bad faith should remain as an opposition ground to minimise spurious actions, but why limit it to rights existing outside the EU? If an applicant acts in bad faith at the date of filing, this should be enough to show as an opposition ground.
What about adding certification marks in the EU? Tey work well in the UK.
As for correction of errors, these should be done only on the existing online database with OHIM, and historical records should not be capable of amendment. We do need amendments to be traceable, and capable of being tracked, and if appropriate, to be undone or redone. Te public records should be certain at all times.
Opposition periods should be harmonised. In the UK, we have two months, extendable by one month upon request. Tis has worked very well, and allows for negotiation between parties before those parties are forced into expensive and protracted opposition proceedings.
‘Tree classes for the price of one’: I consider this leads to clutter on the register. It is human nature to buy one class and get two free (regardless of any real intention to use the mark in the additional two classes). Class fees should be paid per class, even if on a sliding scale, as in most multi-class jurisdictions. Lower fees would lead to speculative filings (look at domain name registrations, for example, where the low filing fees lead to a great number of spurious applications), and that in turn leads to trademark
“ALLOWING ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS UP TO REGISTRATION COULD LEAD TO CONSIDERABLE UNCERTAINTY IN THE PROCESS, AND IN MY VIEW, COULD LEAD TO SPECULATIVE FILINGS.”
protection with no commercial reality behind that registration.
Tings have moved on considerably since 1996, and there is clearly now room for change and improvement. It will be interesting to see how the proposals for the directive and regulations are agreed and implemented.
Maggie Ramage is a partner at Alexander Ramage Associates. She can be contacted at:
maggie@ramage.co.uk
Maggie Ramage is a UK and European trademark attorney, and started in the profession in the early 1980s. She is a member of INTA, ECTA and MARQUES. She is also active on ITMA’s governing council in the UK, and was its president from April 2010 until April 2012. Ramage has worked for the California-based Raychem Corporation, Beecham Group (now part of GlaxoSmithKline), and British Telecom. She has extensive experience in trademark matters, particularly in overseas jurisdictions.
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013
81
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