Pollini r 816/2001 2

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

1/173

NON CONFUSION

INFRINGEMENT

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

2/173

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

3/173

NON CONFUSION

INFRINGEMENT

Professor Charles Gielen

AIPPI Milan July 2008

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

4/173

Why non-confusion?

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

5/173

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

6/173

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

7/173

Why non-confusion?

Why not dilution?

Dilution is only one form of non-confusion infringement

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

8/173

Why non-confusion?

Why not dilution?

Dilution is only one form of non-confusion infringement

Another one is taking unfair

advantage of the repute of the mark

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

9/173

US Trademark Dilution

Revision Act 2006

the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive,

inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall beentitled to an injunction against another person who, atany time after the owner's mark has become famous,commences use of a mark or trade name in commercethat is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by

tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of thepresence or absence of actual or likely confusion, ofcompetition, or of actual economic injury.

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

10/173

Non-confusion in Europe

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

11/173

Non-confusion in EuropeRationale: see CFI Mineral Spa

2008

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

12/173


2008

Art. 4(3) and 5(2) Directive

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

13/173


2008


To be interpreted by ECJ (Davidoffand adidas)

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

14/173


2008



Implemented in almost alljurisdictions

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

15/173


2008



Implemented in almost alljurisdictions

Art. 8(5) and 9(1)(c) CTM

Regulation

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

16/173

The key issues

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

17/173

The key issuesOppose registration or use in the

course of trade of a sign

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

18/173



- identical or similar

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

19/173




- to a reputed mark

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

20/173




- to a reputed mark

- registered for dissimilar products,

if

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

21/173




- to a reputed mark


if

- without due cause

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

22/173




- to a reputed mark


if

- without due cause

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

23/173

The key issues

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

24/173

The key issues

- unfair advantage is taken of, or

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

25/173

The key issues


- detriment is caused to

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

26/173

The key issues



- the distinctiveness or

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

27/173

The key issues




- repute of the mark

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

28/173

The key issues





8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

29/173

The key issues





No confusion required (adidas/

Fitness World)

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

30/173

Similarity?

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

31/173

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

32/173

Similarity?

ECJ in adidas/Fitnessworld(2003):It is sufficient for the degree of

similarity (in visual, aural orconceptual respect, G.) between themark with a reputation and the signto have the effect that the relevant

section of the public establishes a linkbetween the sign and the mark.

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

33/173

Similarity?

ECJ in adidas/Fitnessworld(2003):It is sufficient for the degree of

similarity (in visual, aural orconceptual respect, G.) between themark with a reputation and the signto have the effect that the relevant

section of the public establishes a linkbetween the sign and the mark.

So: if there is association, there issimilarity

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

34/173

Similarity link

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

35/173

Similarity link

High Court 2006 LOreal/Bellure

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

36/173

Similarity link


8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

37/173

Similarity link


8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

38/173

Similarity link


8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

39/173

Link?

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

40/173

Link?The UK reference (May 15, 2007) to ECJ

in re. Intel/Intelmark

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

41/173


in re. Intel/IntelmarkWhatfactors need to be taken into

account to establish a link?

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

42/173



account to establish a link?Other than Jacob, AG Sharpston onJune 26:

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

43/173



account to establish a link?Other than Jacob, AG Sharpston onJune 26:Bringing to mind = link

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

44/173

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

45/173



account to establish a link?Other than Jacob, AG Sharpston onJune 26:Bringing to mind = linkLink=association=connection

Link must be the result of similarity notof something else such as marketleadership

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

46/173



account to establish a link?Other than Jacob, AG Sharpston onJune 26:Bringing to mind = linkLink=association=connection

Link must be the result of similarity notof something else such as marketleadership

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

47/173

No link

Hague District Court 6 December 2005PEPSI

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

48/173

Reputation

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

49/173

ReputationECJ (Chevy) 1999: known by a

significant part of the publicconcerned by the products covered

by the mark

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

50/173

ReputationECJ (Chevy) 1999: known by a

significant part of the publicconcerned by the products covered

by the markNot required that reputation exists

throughout the territory of the

Member State (or EuropeanUnion?): substantial part suffices(compare also ECJ (TARRAGONA)2007)

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

51/173

Reputation

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

52/173

Reputation

Pago/Tirolmilch Qs posed by AustrianSupreme Court

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

53/173

Reputation

Pago/Tirolmilch Qs posed by AustrianSupreme Court Is a mark reputed in the entire EU if it is

reputed in only one member state

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

54/173

Reputation


reputed in only one member state If not, can on the basis of such a reputed an

injunction be granted for one member state

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

55/173

Reputation




Think of ECJ in Chevy:

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

56/173

Reputation




Think of ECJ in Chevy:

It is sufficient for a Benelux trade mark tohave a reputation in a substantial part ofthe Benelux territory, which part mayconsist of a part of one of the Beneluxcountries

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

57/173

Reputation

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

58/173

Reputation

Chevy: The stronger the distinctivecharacter and reputation the easier itwill be to accept that detriment is

caused

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

59/173

Reputation


causedHow to prove: see for example:

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

60/173

Reputation


causedHow to prove: see for example:BoA OHIM 2006 R 759/2005-1 Spa

Monopole

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

61/173

Reputation



Monopole

BoA OHIM 2005 R 1204/2004-1Absolut

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

62/173

Reputation



Monopole

BoA OHIM 2005 R 1204/2004-1AbsolutOHIM 2005 B631483 Karat/Egekaraton

survey evidence

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

63/173

Reputation



Monopole


survey evidence

Not sufficient:

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

64/173

Reputation



Monopole


survey evidence

Not sufficient:CFI 2004 T-8/03 Emidio Tucci

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

65/173

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

66/173

Similar or dissimilar products

ECJ 2003 Davidoff/Durffee:protection also in case of similar

products (teleologicalinterpretation contra legem!)

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

67/173




Examples:

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

68/173

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

69/173




Examples:

Dutch Supreme Court 1977Monopoly/Antimonopoly

District Court Zutphen 2004 Viagra/Sigra

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

70/173

Dilution and similar products

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

71/173


SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

72/173


SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY

both for financial services

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

73/173


SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY


Court Den Bosch 2006

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

74/173


SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY



RED BULL v. BULLFIGHTER

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

75/173


SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY




Both for energy drinks

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

76/173


SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY





Court Brussels 2006

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

77/173


SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY





Court Brussels 2006

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

78/173

Due cause

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

79/173

Due cause

Former Benelux law: only duecause if

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

80/173

Due cause


there is such a necessity to usea particular sign that it cannot bereasonably expected that theuser desists from using it:

almost never accepted, or if

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

81/173

Due cause


there is such a necessity to usea particular sign that it cannot bereasonably expected that theuser desists from using it:

almost never accepted, or ifthe user has prior rights (like

use as a trade name)

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

82/173

Due cause

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

83/173

Due cause

No decisions by ECJ yet, but due cause

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

84/173

Due cause


accepted in District Court The Hague2006 adidas/Nike: use of stripes asdecoration = valid reason to use andin BoA 2004 R-816/2001-2 Pollini:prior use as trade name

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

85/173

Due cause


accepted in District Court The Hague2006 adidas/Nike: use of stripes asdecoration = valid reason to use andin BoA 2004 R-816/2001-2 Pollini:prior use as trade name

denied in BoA 2006 R-428/2005-2Tissot: same principle as priorBenelux law: the fact that the markoriginates from someone with thename Tissot is not sufficient

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

86/173

Likelihood of harm?

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

87/173

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

88/173

Likelihood of harm?

In the context of opposition caselikelihood of harm is sufficient as longas such likelihood is not purely

theoretical (CFI in Citibank/Citi2008),but

In infringement cases the law says:unfair advantage is taken of ordetriment is caused: actual damage?

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

89/173

Likelihood of harm?




No: see art. 16(3) TRIPs: probably

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

90/173

Likelihood of harm?




No: see art. 16(3) TRIPs: probablyConfirmed by CoA The Hague 2002 and

Brussels 2003

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

91/173

Detriment to distinctiveness

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

92/173


AG Jacobs: The essence is that theblurring of the distinctiveness of themark means that it is no longer capableof arousing immediate association withthe goods for which it is registered andused.

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

93/173



CoA London Intel/Intelmark: 3rdquestion: AG Sharpston

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

94/173




Mark does not have to be unique

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

95/173




Mark does not have to be unique

No effect on economic behaviour necessary

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

96/173

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

97/173


Not accepted in SPA (mineral

water) v. SPA-FINDERS (travel

agency services); CFI 2005T-67/04

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

98/173


Not accepted in SPA (mineral

water) v. SPA-FINDERS (travel

agency services); CFI 2005T-67/04

Not accepted in VIPS (restaurant

services) v. VIPS (computerprograms for restaurants); CFI

2007 T-215/03

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

99/173


8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

100/173


CFI 2008

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

101/173


CFI 2008

CAMEL for tobaccoproducts

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

102/173


CFI 2008


vs.

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

103/173


CFI 2008


vs.CAMELO for coffee

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

104/173


CFI 2008



- Camels and piramides: weak

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

105/173


CFI 2008



- Camels and piramides: weak

- No detriment

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

106/173

Detriment to repute

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

107/173

Detriment to repute

AG Jacobs: often referred to as

degradation or tarnishment of the

mark, describes the situation where

the goods for which the infringing signis used appeal to the public's senses in

such a way that the trade mark's

power of attraction is affected

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

108/173

Detriment to repute

AG Jacobs: often referred to as

degradation or tarnishment of the

mark, describes the situation where

the goods for which the infringing signis used appeal to the public's senses in

such a way that the trade mark's

power of attraction is affectedBenelux Court of Justice: Claeryn/

Klarein

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

109/173

Detriment to repute

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

110/173

Detriment to repute

HOLLYWOOD (chewing gum) v.

HOLLYWOOD (tobacco products);

BoA 2001 R283/1999-3

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

111/173

Detriment to repute

HOLLYWOOD (chewing gum) v.

HOLLYWOOD (tobacco products);

BoA 2001 R283/1999-3DERBI (motor- and bicycles) v.

DERBY QUEEN (gambling

machines); BoA 2006R334/2005-2

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

112/173

Detriment to repute

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

113/173

Detriment to repute

Court The Hague 2001

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

114/173

Detriment to repute


8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

115/173

Detriment to repute


8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

116/173

Taking unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

117/173


AG Jacobs (quoting F. Mosterts book):exploitation and free-riding on thecoattails of a famous mark or an

attempt to trade upon its reputation'

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

118/173




Difference between the two not obvious

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

119/173





Of repute: Daewoo, the Rolls Royce

under the Korean cars

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

120/173





Of repute: Daewoo, the Rolls Royce

under the Korean carsOf distinctiveness: skyping with us is

cheaper

T ki f i d

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

121/173


T ki f i d t

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

122/173


ABSOLUT (wodka) v.ABSSOLUTE (eyglasses); BoA2005 R1204/2004-1

T ki f i d t

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

123/173



MARIE CLAIRE (fashionmagazine) v. MARIE CLAIRE(clothing); CoA The Hague and

Paris 2006

T ki f i d t

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

124/173



MARIE CLAIRE (fashionmagazine) v. MARIE CLAIRE(clothing); CoA The Hague and

Paris 2006IGNIS (for electronic household

appliances) v. IGNIS (vehicles);BoA 2006 R550/2004-4

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

125/173


8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

126/173


TDK (apparatus for recording)

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

127/173



8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

128/173



vs.

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

129/173



vs.

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

130/173



vs.

TDK (clothing);

k f d

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

131/173



vs.

TDK (clothing);

k f d

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

132/173



vs.

TDK (clothing);

(CFI February 2007 T-477/04)

TDK: sponsorship

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

133/173

TDK: sponsorship

activities in s ortin field

TDK: sponsorship

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

134/173

TDK: sponsorship

activities in s ortin field

TDK: sponsorship

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

135/173

TDK: sponsorship

activities in s ortin field Future risk of thetaking of unfairadvantage by the

applicant of thereputation

TDK: sponsorship

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

136/173

TDK: sponsorship



TDK: sponsorship

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

137/173

TDK: sponsorship



TDK: sponsorship

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

138/173

TDK: sponsorship



TDK: sponsorship

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

139/173

TDK: sponsorship



TDK: sponsorship

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

140/173

TDK: sponsorship



Source picture:

T ki f i d t

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

141/173


T ki f i d t

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

142/173


NASDAQ (financial services)

T ki f i d t

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

143/173



Taking nfai ad antage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

144/173



vs.


8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

145/173



vs.


8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

146/173



vs.

NASDAQ (device mark for

sportswear and clothing);


8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

147/173



vs.

NASDAQ (device mark for

sportswear and clothing);CFI May 2007 T-47/06

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

148/173

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

149/173

Unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

150/173

Unfair advantage

Unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

151/173

Unfair advantage

CFI 2008:

Unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

152/173

Unfair advantage

CFI 2008:

CITIBANKfor financial services

Unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

153/173

Unfair advantage

CFI 2008:


vs. CITIfor customs agency services

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

154/173

Unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

155/173

Unfair advantage

CFI 2008:


vs. CITIfor customs agency services- High repute ofCITIBANK

- Natural overlap of clients

Unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

156/173

Unfair advantage

CFI 2008:


vs. CITIfor customs agency services- High repute ofCITIBANK

- Natural overlap of clients

- Relationship between services

Unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

157/173

Unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

158/173

Unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

159/173

Unfair advantage

CFI 2008:

Spa (mineral waters etc.) vs.Mineral Spa (soaps, perfumes,body care)

Unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

160/173

Unfair advantage

CFI 2008:


- Risk of transfer of image

Unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

161/173

Unfair advantage

CFI 2008:


- Risk of transfer of image- Overlap of public

Unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

162/173

Unfair advantage

CFI 2008:



- Products are not so different

Unfair advantage

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

163/173

Unfair advantage

CFI 2008:



- Products are not so different

- Similar messages conveyed: health,beaty, purity and richness in minerals

Action available

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

164/173

Action available

Action available

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

165/173

Action available

Mostly identical marks

Action available

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

166/173

Action available


Inherent distinctiveness (no 2nd

thoughts)

Action available

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

167/173

Action available



thoughts)No theoretical likelihood of damage

Action available

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

168/173

Action available




In cases of

Action available

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

169/173

Action available




In cases of

Icon marks

Action available

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

170/173

Action available




In cases of

Icon marksAntagonism

Action available

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

171/173

Action available




In cases of

Icon marksAntagonism

Related products

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

172/173

THANKS!

8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2

173/173

THANKS!

[email protected]

Pollini r 816/2001 2

Documents

Transcript of Pollini r 816/2001 2