Trademarks – Page 21 – IP Law Watch

To Perform a Technical Function or Not: This is Rubik’s Question.

Dec 02 2016

After the CJEU decision in case C-30/15 P, fans of three-dimensional trade marks will be wondering if the opportunity to register them is as straightforward as it appears from the recent reform of the Regulation No. 207/2009.

For 10 years, Simba Toys and Seven Towns have been involved in the Rubik’s cube saga, which began in 1999, when the three-dimensional sign reproducing the popular Hungarian toy was registered as a Community trade mark.

The application for a declaration of invalidity filed in 2006 by Simba Toys was based mainly on the infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94, which prevents a trade mark consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result to be registered.

The EUIPO Cancellation Division as well as the Board of Appeal and the General Court rejected the arguments of the German firm on the grounds that the essential characteristics of the sign at issue are a cube and a grid structure on each surface of the cube and that they do not perform any technical function.

Hence, the appellant’s argument was rejected because the rotating capability of the lattices did not result from the shape presented, but from the invisible internal mechanism which was not part of the graphical representation filed in the trade mark application.

As often happens, the above decisions have been overturned by the CJEU. In particular, the approach of the lower courts was found to be too narrow as they did not take into account the additional elements relating to the function of the actual goods in question.

Lastly, the court held that not taking into account the rotating capability of the cube would extend the trade mark protection to any other kind of puzzle with a similar shape. On the other hand, the technical function behind the cube falls within the scope of Article 7(1)(e)(ii), which precludes the granting of a permanent monopoly on technical solutions. Therefore, in this case it would be more appropriate to consider a patent protection as it has a limited life unlike trademarks.

In conclusion, while the Rubik brand will continue to ensure its exclusivity through other trademarks, copyright, passing off and unfair competition protection, this case made it clear that an effective access to the registration of unconventional trade marks remains as uncertain as the interpretation of Article 7(1)(e)(ii).

By: Serena Totino and Michał Ziółkowski

EU recap: Ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the possibility of consumers being misled (Mille Miglia vs e-miglia)

Dec 01 2016

Recap from the K&L Gates publication Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Quarterly Bulletin, 1/2017 – click here.

On 17 February 2011, the company Rebel Media Ltd applied to the European Union Intellectual Property Office for the registration of a community trademark for the following graphic designation:

for goods and services in classes 12 (vehicles, land, air and water transport devices), 14 (including precious metals and alloys thereof, jewellery, gemstones), 18 (including leather, imitation leather and products from such materials), 25 (clothing, footwear, headwear), 35 (including advertising, in particular of electric vehicles, organization of advertising events) and 41 (education, training, recreation, sports and cultural events) of the Nice Classification.

On 16 September 2011, the company Automobile Club di Brescia lodged an opposition to the registration of the above mark in respect of all of the goods and services submitted.

Use it or Lose it – Exercising ‘Control’ Over use of a Trade Mark

Nov 27 2016

A unanimous appeal judgment handed down by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia earlier this year, signals the importance of trade mark owners exercising “control” over use of their trade mark by licensees, or risk cancellation of the trade mark for non-use.

It is very common for the trade mark owner not to be the actual user of the trade mark. Related parties within the same corporate group may have different functions of ownership or use, or local distributors/licensees may be appointed to use a trade mark owned by a foreign brand owner.

Fashion Law Newsletter – Spring/Summer 2016 Edition

Nov 23 2016

“Fashion has always been a repetition of ideas, but what makes it new is the way you put it together.” – Carolina Herrera

Welcome to the latest edition of Fashion Law, this edition touches on issues that demonstrate the impact of world events and technological changes on all businesses.

Fashion Law gives you the latest updates on legal issues affecting the fashion industry.

Please click here to read the Spring/Summer 2016 edition of Fashion Law.

Contact: Lisa Egan

Trademark Law Update: SCOTUS to Decide Whether Ban on Registering “Disparaging Marks” Is Unconstitutional

Nov 08 2016

Under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may refuse to register any trademark that “[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute.” This spring, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide in Lee v. Tam whether this provision of the Lanham Act is facially invalid under the First Amendment. Here’s what you need to know about this important case.

Please click here to view the full alert.

By: Joanna Diakos and Thomas W. Dollar

EU Board of Appeal decision: trademark application consisting of a combination of colours

Oct 20 2016

On 19 October 2016, the Board of Appeal upheld a decision by the Cancellation Division entirely invalidating a graphic trademark registered on 7 December 2007 by the Hudson’s Bay Company. The basis for the invalidation was Article 51 par. 1a), pursuant to which a trademark must be deemed as having expired if it is not used for a period of five years.

The trademark in question consisted of four stripes of different colours: green, red, yellow and blue, and was registered as a graphic trademark, not as a combination of colours per se. The Hudson’s Bay Company used that colour combination on its products, but not in the form of stripes on a white rectangle, but as stripes running across the entire width of a product. The Cancellation Division found that, placed on a given product in that manner, the colours did not function as a trademark, that is, they did not serve to identify the origin of the product, but only constituted a decorative design. In addition, the products themselves appeared in different colour versions and not in the version reserved for the mark.

The Cancellation Division found that the relevant target group of consumers perceived the striped pattern as a design, and not as a trademark, and that the Hudson’s Bay Company had not provided evidence attesting that this was not the case. The Hudson’s Bay Company lodged an appeal against the decision to invalidate, arguing, among other things, that the colour combination used always consists of four colours of evenly placed stripes in the colours green, red, yellow and blue. The company added that, of course, the colour scheme does constitute a decoration, but is used for the purpose of identifying the company.

The Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It found that the trademark had been registered as a graphic mark, not as a colour combination. Therefore, the use of the trademark cannot differ from what was registered, and so the same combination of colours must appear in the same order and in the same proportions. The Board of Appeal found that, used in the manner it is, the mark should not have been registered as a graphic trademark, but as a colour combination per se. Certainly, the Hudson’s Bay Company would then enjoy such protection, and there would be no doubt concerning actual use. Nevertheless, because the colour combination was registered as a graphic trademark, the Board of Appeal upheld the stance of the Cancellation Division that the trademark registered had not actually been used for five years and dismissed the appeal.

SOURCE: www.euipo.europa.eu

By: Daria Golus

From the K&L Gates publication Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Quarterly Bulletin, 1/2017 – click here.

Motion Trademarks as an Element of Brand Promotion

Oct 13 2016

One of the most interesting forms of trademark in circulation is the motion trademark

A Moving Logo

A motion mark may be an animation created using a computer program, or some other moving object which exists in the real world. In particular, such a mark may be in the form of a gesture made by a person using various parts of the body, especially the hand. Submitting a motion trademark involves the same criteria of assessment as do other forms of trademarks, but motion marks remain but a small fraction of the trademark submissions made in the European Union.

A motion trademark should have distinctiveness, and should be possible to depict precisely in an application. The presentability of motion marks depends on being able to depict a series of movements by an appropriate arrangement of a sequence of images. It is also crucial to provide a sufficiently exact description of the mark, including the order and form of the movement occurring in the images. In a motion mark, it is precisely the motion and the succession of scenes which are the most important aspects which may be subject to protection. Care must also be taken, since motion marks cannot appear in trade in “pure” form, but only as a combination of marks, for example, movement and sound (e.g. application CTM No. 003429909 showing clasping hands, used for some time by the company Nokia).

A dog of a trade mark dispute

Sep 29 2016

A long running trade mark dispute between Black Dog Ride Pty Ltd (Ride) (http://www.blackdogride.com.au/) and the Black Dog Institute (Institute) has concluded almost four years after an acrimonious dispute arose between the two organisations ended what had been a mutually beneficial relationship. The Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks who heard the dispute ultimately dismissed each of the respective oppositions filed by the parties and confirmed the rights of Ride to register BLACK DOG RIDE (stylised) and the Institute to register BLACK DOG for various goods and services.

In 2002, the Institute was founded as a non-profit organisation specialising in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mood disorders. In 2008, Steve Andrews created Ride to organise charitable motorcycle rides to raise awareness of depression and suicide prevention. Importantly, the Delegate found that both Ride and the Institute adopted names including the words BLACK DOG as a result of Winston Churchill’s well known use of the phrase BLACK DOG when referring to his battles with the mood illness.

Green with Envy: Colour Trade Marks in Australia

Sep 05 2016

Frucor Beverages Limited (Frucor), the manufacturer of energy drink, V, has unsuccessfully tried to register a trade mark for the colour green. Last month, Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola), the manufacturer of Mother energy drinks, successfully opposed registration of the trade mark filed in 2012 in relation to energy drinks which consisted of the colour green (Pantone 376c), as shown below.

Coca-Cola opposed the trade mark application on the basis that Pantone 376c Green was not capable of distinguishing Frucor’s energy drinks and that the application was defective. While the opposition failed on the latter ground, Coca-Cola was successful in its argument that Pantone 376c Green was not capable of distinguishing V energy drinks from the energy drinks of other traders.

Humira® Update: Big Guns Take Aim at Top-Selling Biologic

Aug 19 2016

AbbVie Inc.’s Humira® (adalimumab) was the top selling drug in 2015. Unsurprisingly, it is the focus of biosimilar applicants and patent challengers aiming to get into the market. We provide this update on three events regarding Humira® that took place over the past two months: (1) Amgen Inc., which is pursuing a biosimilar version of Humira®, received a recommendation toward approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”); (2) AbbVie sued Amgen for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Amgen infringed several of its patents by seeking FDA approval of its biosimilar version of Humira®; and (3) the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office instituted inter partes review (“IPR”) of a Humira® patent at the request of Boehringer Ingelheim.

Please click here to view the alert.

By: Margaux L. Nair, Trevor M. Gates, Peter Giunta, Theodore J. Angelis

Category:Trademarks