The first decision on an appeal to the Appointed Person under a new regime for designs has been issued. The appeal in this first case was against a decision by a hearing officer for the IPO to invalidate two registered designs consisting of a garment with a modified Union flag on the chest, in response to a request from a competitor of the rights owner.
We reported previously, in Bulletin No. 2 /2016 (page 15), on a case of the registration of the graphic trademark (shown below, packaging for Knoppers waffles, without any additional markings, with protection only for the two-colored background) for goods from class 30 of the Nice Classification, namely confectionery products, chocolates, chocolate products, cakes, ice creams, and ingredients for manufacturing such products.
The new generic top-level domain (gTLD) .africa, a regional domain for users located in and out of the continent, has been officially validated by ICANN.
More than a decade after its other regional counterparts, such as .eu or .asia, the .africa gTLD has been the subject matter of a legal conundrum for years.
Indeed, a conflict between two operators had to be escalated up to U.S. courts before a final decision entrusted the management of the gTLD to a South African company, ZA Central Registry NPC.
This new gTLD will allow the African continent to seize the full potential of the internet revolution, on a continent where the mobile connectivity is now allowing bypassing the expensive copper wire infrastructure development.
The new .africa domain name extension is expected to lead the continent in its global effort to take part in the global information society and become a strategic place to invest.
Accessibility to the new domain name will be gradual: starting on 6 April 2017, a 60-day preliminary phase will allow trademark owners or companies to benefit from a priority right, as well as African countries that intend to protect certain emblematic names such as “Mount Kilimanjaro”. Then, starting on 2 June 2017, an Early Access Phase (EAP) will take place to prevent any hindrance or ransoming by ill-intentioned people.
The .africa TLD will finally be open to all on 4 July 2017, on a first-come/first-serve basis.
K&L Gates has more than 225 lawyers, including approximately 100 registered patent lawyers, agents, and technology specialists with technical or advanced science degrees – nearly 20 with Ph.D.s – who devote their practices to helping clients establish, enforce, and leverage their intellectual property rights worldwide.
We can thus highlight the pitfall to avoid, the topics on which to focus the attention and better defend and protect our clients’ intangible assets with regard to the opening of this new gTLD, on this emerging market.
The European Union Court of Justice confirmed the intellectual property rights owned by the French company “Forge de Laguiole”, but solely in areas in which it pursued an actual business activity.
A decision [1] dated 5 April 2017 of the European Union Court of Justice (EUCJ) put an end to the longstanding series of court decisions about the Laguiole trademark before the European Union jurisdictions (EU Jurisdictions), on which relied the right for French company “Forge de Laguiole” to keep using its business name. This decision also gave the EUCJ the opportunity to clarify the application of national case law by the EU Jurisdictions within the framework of proceedings based on Article 8 (4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (the “Regulation”) [2].
In the UK, in a decision that will provide additional comfort to trade mark owners seeking to protect their intellectual property rights in the UK, the High Court held that a threat issued by a trade mark owner was not groundless simply because it was never followed up by proceedings being issued.
In Vanderbilt v Wallace & Ors [2017] EWCH 45 (IPEC), the High Court held that “the emphasis is on whether the acts actually infringe or, if done, would infringe, not on whether a proprietor actually sues for infringement. The phrase does not impose an obligation to commence legal proceedings for every act complained of.”
The case involved a long running trade mark dispute between the claimant and defendant, including several concurrent actions. In this instance the defendant had argued that section 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 established that where threats are made the trade mark proprietor has to bring a claim in relation to everything that is the subject of a threat, and that if they fail to do so then the threats can never be justified, even if there is infringement.
The Court disagreed. It stated that there are often valid commercial reasons why a trade mark owner may elect not to issue proceedings even if there is an obvious infringement. The Court will consider the validity of the claim on its own and whether the acts complained of constitute an infringement, regardless of whether proceedings have been issued following any threats to sue.
In addition to providing clarity, this outcome will please trade mark owners. Provided that they have established infringement they can send cease and desist letters without worrying about issuing legal proceedings that may not be commercially desirable.
By: Nóirín McFadden and Jamie Kershaw
In a ruling on 3 February 2017, the Court of Appeal in Białystok (Poland) considered an appeal by a defendant in a case concerning the right to combat unfair competition (case file I ACa 740/16). The dispute arose over the use by the defendant of the business name of the plaintiff when marketing services on the Internet.
The plaintiff’s business is debt recovery. Its activities involve acquiring debts from third parties or acting on behalf of creditors. The plaintiff became aware that the effectiveness of its activities was declining and believed the cause of this lay in the unlawful, in its opinion, activities of the defendant. The defendant conducts business involving consultancy services for debtors of banks and other institutions.
Recap from the K&L Gates publication Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Quarterly Bulletin, 1/2017 – click here.
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
As stated in a previous article published in the Trademark and Unfair Competition Bulletin (page 11) , the Act no. 2014–344 on consumer protection, named the “Hamon Act” and dated 17 March 2014, created a new industrial property right: the “Geographical Indications protecting Industrial Products and Crafts” (or “Indications Géographiques protégeant les Produits Industriels et Artisanaux”, hereinater, “IGPIA”) in order to include industrial and handicraft products in the scope of the protection of geographical indications.
In the same article, the authors highlighted the fact that prior to the implementation of the aforementioned provision, there was a lack of protection since a third party could use the name of a famous place or city and register it as a trademark to misleadingly sell handicraft products under that name.
Introduction to the Laguiole case
A famous example was the “Laguiole cutlery” case where a third party, among others, was using the famous French city name of “Laguiole” as a trademark to flood the market with knives made in China under that brand. Following the scandal that ensued, the Laguiole municipality launched an action against several companies and legal persons that had registered 27 trademarks in total, on the ground that such use of “Laguiole” was deceptive.
Indeed, the trademark “Laguiole” had been filled in almost all trademarks’ classes and therefore the Laguiole municipality was prevented from using such trademark for its own activities and, in particular, for its renowned cheese and cutlery.
After a first-instance ruling, the Paris Court of Appeal rejected the Laguiole municipality’s action in 2014 which was subsequently presented to the French Supreme Court (“Cour de cassation”).
The Cour de cassation ruling
By a ruling dated 4 October 2016, the Cour de cassation overturned parts of the ruling of the Paris Court of Appeal and welcomed arguments of the Laguiole municipality.
Indeed, the Cour de cassation considered that the use of the “Laguiole” trademark by the defendants was misleading and confusing to consumers since the products sold under that trademark were not manufactured in such place.
In addition to such argument based on consumer protection laws, several arguments grounded on trademark law were also favourably received by the Cour de cassation. However, as such court only has jurisdiction over legal qualification but not on facts, the end of this saga will be written by the Court of Appeal to which the case has been remanded to for the final ruling.
The Court of Appeal will hopefully close the ongoing debate. However, the Court of Appeal may also side with the initial Paris Court of Appeal ruling. In such a case, the Cour de cassation may have to hear the case again.
Nevertheless, such litigation intervenes in a context where IGPIA has effectively become protected. Even if Laguiole was not among the five applications filed for IGPIA in France (out of which only one has been granted so far), the broad power given to geographical indications with the adoption of European Regulation No 2015/2424 amending the Community Trade Mark Regulation and the European Directive No 2015/2436 approximating the laws of the member states relating to trade marks may have an impact on actors’ practices.
Indeed, according to these regulations, the national right granted on geographical indications through IGPIA or otherwise conferred by the courts, may materialize a ground for refusal for not only trademark applications but also for European trademarks. There is thus a strong incentive to seek this protection by any means necessary.
By: Claude Armingaud and Olivia Roche
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.
By Briony Pollard and Serena Totino
Designers will be disappointed by the recent Supreme Court decision in the long running Trunki (suit) case between Magmatic and PMS International, which finally put to bed whether surface decoration could and should form part of the global comparison test when assessing infringement of a Registered Community Design (RCD).
In 2013 Magmatic Ltd., manufacturer of ‘Trunki’, the ride-on suitcases for children, attempted to enforce its RCD against PMS International Group plc, importer and seller of the ‘Kiddee case’ in the UK and Germany.
Both Trunki and Kiddee cases are designed to look like animals, both have four wheels, a clasp at the front and a saddle-shaped top making the cases easy for children to ride on. The differences between the cases are largely limited to colour and the ‘protuberances’, which look like horns in the Trunki case and antennae or ears in the Kiddee case.
Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.