DILUTION
TRADEMARK DILUTION IN THE EU
Proof of and protection against trademark dilution and blurring are contentious issues
where restrictions on competition fall into play, among other concerns, says Marina Perraki.
Marks (166, 1925): “Any theory of trademark protection which … does not focus the protective function of the court upon the goodwill of the owner of the trademark, inevitably renders such owner dependent for protection … upon the judicial estimate of the state of the public mind. Tis psychological element is in any event at best an uncertain factor …” since “the so-called ordinary purchaser changes his mental qualities with every judge”. At the heart of establishing dilution lies the dichotomy between the objective goodwill of the trademark and the subjective state of mind of the consumer.
F Dilution categories
Within the European framework, Directives 89/104/EC and 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, approximating the member states’ laws relating to trademarks, introduced the optional provision of protection against trademark dilution; that is, protection against the use of an identical or similar sign in relation to dissimilar goods where the prior mark has a reputation in a member state and where use of the later sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the reputation of the trademark.
Tis provision has been implemented in all EU member states and has been extended by the
58 rank Schechter, the founder of dilution
theory, pointed out in Te Historical Foundations of the Law Relating to Trade-
Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) also to apply in the case of use on similar goods or services (C-408/01 Adidas Salomon AG and Adidas Benelux BV v Fitnessworld Trading Ltd). Te Community Trademark Regulation 207/2009 includes a similar provision.
It is sufficient that only one of the three types of injury—(i) detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier mark, (ii) detriment to the repute of that mark, or (iii) unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of that mark— exists, as the CJEU has confirmed (C-252/07, Intel Corporation v CPM UK Ltd).
Detriment to the distinctive character runs parallel to pure dilution: the blurring of the distinctive character of the mark. Similarly, the detriment to the repute of the mark is parallel to tarnishment, namely the harmful impact of undesirable connotations on the repute of the mark. Unfair advantage relates to “free riding” of a third party and is borrowed from the content of unfair competition law (see also C-487/07 L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd, Starion International Ltd).
Proof requirements
As regards “free riding” the court has confirmed that a mere attempt to ride on the coat-tails of a mark with a reputation could be sufficient for a finding of taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or
the repute of World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2014 the trademark, without any
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