Side by Side - AG Mengozzi Sets Out the Rules Around Parallel Importation and TM Infringement

Many brands don't only compete in a domestic market these days, but a larger global market where individual countries can be incredibly valuable in addition to the country of origin. In these instances parallel importation can be a thorny subject, particularly when the rights to particular goods (or the IP in them) has been licensed or even sold on from the original proprietor. Parallel importation also shares the field with exhaustion, potentially leaving the original seller without recourse as their rights have expired, but the matter hasn't been addressed in the EU courts for over 20 years. In the light of this silence, a case has recently been referred to the CJEU, and ahead of its decision an Advocate General stepped in to provide some well-needed insight into the law and its interpretation.

The case of Schweppes SA v Red Paralela SL related to the sale of soda water. The Schweppes brand of soda water has been sold since the late 18th century by Schweppes. The company also registered the name as a trademark in all European countries as national marks, e.g. the UK (TM 508257). In 1999 Schweppes sold the rights to the name to the Coca-Cola Company in 13 EU Member States (including the UK), keeping their rights in 18 other countries in the EU, among which was Spain. Red Paralela started to import bottles of Schweppes from the UK to Spain, after which Schweppes took Red Paralela to court for trademark infringement, with Red Paralela defending the matter under exhaustion.

The referring court asked four questions, which revolve around Article 7 old Trade Mark Directive and Article 15 of the new Trade Mark Directive relating to the exhaustion of rights in registered trademarks.

Advocate General Mengozzi set out to considered all of the questions together, summarising them as asking "…whether Article 36 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Directive 2008/95 preclude… the licensee of the proprietor of a national trade mark from invoking the exclusive rights enjoyed by the latter under the law of the Member State in which the trade mark is registered in order to oppose the importing into and/or marketing in that State of goods bearing an identical trade mark which come from another Member State, one in which that trade mark, which was once owned by the group to which both the proprietor of the mark in the importing State and its licensee belong, is owned by a third party which has acquired the rights to it by assignment".

In essence, the questions ask whether it is possible for the original owner of trademark rights, having since sold them in some jurisdictions, to prevent a seller from importing legally sources goods from another country to another where the rights don't exist for those goods.

The AG started off with setting out what the exhaustion of rights under EU law looked like.

Parallel imports provide "great" opportunities for young adults

In order for exhaustion to operate, two conditions have to be met: (1) the goods bearing the trade mark must have been put on the market in the EEA; and (2) the proprietor of the trade mark must, if it has not itself put the goods on the market, have consented to their being put on the market. The first condition is only met when the goods are sold, not merely imported on the market. The second condition requires consent, which can be, according to case law, derived from when the goods are put on the market by an operator that is economically linked to the trade mark proprietor, such as, inter alia, a licensee. This stems from the protection of the free movement of goods under EU law. Consent can also be implied in the absence of an economic link through circumstances and facts before, during or at the same time of placing the goods on the market, which demonstrate an unequivocal renouncement of rights.

The next point was the fragmentation of rights and the exhaustion of those rights through the distribution of exclusive rights for the goods.

National trademarks, according to EU case law, operate independently. If the importing entity and the owner of the national trademark in that country are the same or economically linked, the rights are exhausted. This does require that the goods were manufactured under the control of a single body, and that there was a possibility of control over the quality of the goods. In the event of assignment, there is no control over the quality of the goods by the original owner of the rights, and exhaustion therefore wouldn't apply.

In the light of the above, the AG then considered whether the importation of Schweppes from the UK to Spain would infringe on Schweppe's rights.

The AG looked at the economic link between the parties, specifically in the instance of parallel importation after the assignment of rights in different countries. Exhaustion, in the AG's view, can also exist not only where the two entities are strictly dependant on each other, but also where the trademark is under 'unitary control' in the circumstances of a matter. This would also be the case where the two parties that own national rights have 'joint control' over the exportation and importation process, or if the marketing and manufacturing of the goods happens under unitary control. Joint control would have to entail an agreement as to "…determining directly or indirectly the goods to which the trade mark may be affixed and of controlling their quality". In other words, exhaustion can apply where two companies "…coordinate their commercial policies with a view to exercising joint control of the use of their respective marks".

From an evidentiary standpoint, the burden of proof on the relationship between the companies and their business relating to the relevant marks falls on the parallel importer (Coca-Cola in this instance), showcasing the exhaustion of rights. Should there be enough evidence to potentially prove exhaustion; the original proprietor has to prove that they have no agreement in place, or collaboration, with the importer on unitary control, which exhausts their rights.

In short, the AG set out his opinion on the questions asked: "… Article 36 TFEU and Article 7(1) of [the] Directive… preclude the licensee of the proprietor of a national trade mark from invoking the exclusive rights enjoyed by the latter under the law of the Member State in which the trade mark is registered in order to oppose the importing into and/or marketing in that State of goods bearing an identical trade mark which come from another Member State, one in which that trade mark, which was once owned by the group to which both the proprietor of the mark in the importing State and its licensee belong, is owned by a third party which has acquired the rights to it by assignment where, given the economic links existing between the proprietor of the mark in the importing State and the proprietor of the mark in the exporting State, it is clear that the marks are under unitary control and that the proprietor of the mark in the importing State has the possibility of determining directly or indirectly the goods to which the trade mark in the exporting State may be affixed and of controlling their quality".

The opinion does set the tone for the decision by the CJEU in the near future, and it will be an important landmark on the law surrounding parallel importation. The simple assignment of some rights, at least in the mind of this writer, shouldn't preclude the restriction of importation by a competitor in the absence of clear acquiescence through either agreement or a joint relationship relating to those goods. The division of rights sets a clear marker on the retention of rights in key jurisdictions, and the ignorance of that purely through assignment would be short-sighted and effectively remove the possibility of doing so anywhere in the fear of losing global rights elsewhere.  In the end the CJEU will set the test for this, but the AG's opinion seems like a realistic and common sense approach to the issue at hand.

Toblenone - The Battle of the Peaks Begins Over the Toblerone Shape

Imitation is thought to be the greatest form of flattery, but in the world of IP, this is often the opposite of the case. Copying the looks of a product can be quite beneficial for the copying company, riding on the coattails of a potentially well-known look of a product, especially if they are undercutting the price of the original. This blog has discussed issues of generic packaging before, and the notorious KitKat saga, but none of the cases have looked at the matter of changing the shape of the original product, yet still seeking protection over the shape.

A recent case discussed in the Guardian has shed a new perspective, as discussed above, relating to the Toblerone chocolate bar. Poundland, a UK discount retailer selling products predominantly at £1, launched their Toblerone competitor Twin Peaks earlier this summer, aiming to compete against the reduced size Toblerone bar. This change featured bigger gaps in the Toblerone bar between the iconic triangular peaks, due to rising ingredient prices.

The matter has since gone to court, with Mondelez (the company that owns the Toblerone brand) arguing (possibly among other grounds) trademark infringement. Poundland have counterclaimed (possibly among other grounds) for invalidity and argued that "…the triangular prism shape of the Toblerone bar, which was registered under an EU trademark in 1997, is no longer distinctive partly because of the existence of the new version". Adding to this, they argued that "…any good reputation enjoyed by the Toblerone bar trademark has been “irretrievably abandoned” by the launch of the product with bigger gaps between its nine chunks, which the public “consider unfavourably in comparison”".

Mondelez put a wholly different spin
on the change to the Toblerone bar

The crux of the question is therefore whether the trademark registered by Toblerone (EUTM 31237) would no longer be distinctive due to the change in the Toblerone chocolate bar, and even if it's distinctive, whether the Twin Peaks bar creates a different impression so as to not infringe on the trademark or other possible rights under common law.

Arguably, Poundland potentially do have a point. The Toblerone bar has reduced its size by about 10%, and changed its shape from the registered 12 peaks to 11, with the gaps between the peaks has doubled by this writer's estimate. The base of the bar has also arguably become thinner. The Twin Peaks bar does not feature the wider gaps of the new Toblerone bar, including having a curved gap rather than a flat one, and splits the peaks into two. The Twin Peaks bar is also sold in a loosely fitting wrapper packaging, rather than a hard triangular cardboard package.

Case law has looked at changes to earlier registrations, and it does not necessarily bode well for Toblerone. In The Coca-Cola Company v OHIM the cola manufacturer changed the look of their iconic bottle, removing its distinctive fluting, and due to this change the EU General Court rejected their application for a lack of acquired distinctiveness, as "…[the bottle] was a mere variant of the shape and packaging of the goods concerned, which would not enable the average consumer to distinguish the goods from those of other undertakings". It is possible for the registration to be attacked (although the name and the triangular packaging will still arguably remain protected), so Toblerone would benefit from a new registration for the reduced size bar, unless it is simply treated as a stop-gap while prices are still high for some ingredients.

The Toblerone question is a very curious one, and this writer for one would love to see the case actually go to court (but heavily doubts this will happen). The point of changing the shape of a product with an existing trademark registration hasn't been dealt with by the judiciary much at all, so more light on this issue would be very helpful for both would-be registrants and competitors alike.

Source: The Guardian

Distinct as Ever - Google Not a Generic Term, Says US Court of Appeal

When a particular brand becomes hugely successful, it more often than not becomes very valuable, but even the biggest of players are not protected from the ill effects of popularity. A big problem that many brands face is the generification of their brand, i.e. it becomes so well-known and associated with a particular type of good or service that consumers use it to refer to all of those goods or services. Through this the distinctiveness of the trademark becomes diluted, and potentially is lost entirely. Many companies will therefore fight to protect their brands and to establish proper trademark use guidelines (for example, INTA has a set of guidelines for online use) to combat this issue. A case that has dealt with the 'generification' or 'genericisation' of trademarks has been going on in the US for over 5 years (discussion on the first instance decision here), culminating in a Court of Appeal decision in mid-March.

The case of Elliott v Google Inc. deals with the registration of over 760 domain names by David Elliot, which incorporated both the word "Google" and other well-known brands, such as Disney, in the domain name. Google subsequently objected to the registrations, lodging a complaint at the National Arbitration Forum (handling the domain name disputes for the provider). NAF ruled in Google's favor, and the complaint then lodged proceedings in the Arizona District Court for the cancellation of the Google trademarks under 15 USC section 1064(3) as being "...primarily understood as a generic term universally used to describe the act of internet searching". Elliott's case failed at first instance for lack of evidence as to this fact, and the matter since was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The main question for the Court therefore was whether 'Google' had become generic through use; however, as noted by the Court: "…The mere fact that the public sometimes uses a trademark as the name for a unique product does not immediately render the mark generic". Consumers would have to consistently, and for a prolonged period of time, use the marl for it to become arguably generic. Judge Tallman set out the legal test for this, which looks at "…whether the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is [now] the product [and not] the producer".

Judge Tallman continued that the claim for the genericness of a product or service always has to relate to a particular type of goods or services the mark is registered for. Elliott had defined this as 'the act of searching the internet'; however, the marks are not registered for these types of services. The Court rejected his argument, due to a lack of particular good or services designated for which the mark has become generic for.

Elliott's main argument in the proceedings related to the potential use of 'Google' as a verb to describe the act of searching the internet (using Google or not) by the relevant public, having therefore become generic. The Court rejected Elliott's argument, since he failed on two fronts: he failed to recognize that a claim of genericide must always relate to a particular type of good or service, and that he erroneously assumed that verb use automatically constitutes generic use.

Firstly, the Court highlighted Elliott's lack of specificity in setting out the particular type of goods or service the verb relates to. While he did set out that 'Google' related to the act of searching the internet in general, there was no inherent link between the claim of genericide and a particular type of good or service. In other words, Elliott's claim only relates to a broad, undefined action, rather than a particular good or service the mark is registered for.

Junior was unnerved by his own 'googling'

Secondly, the use of a trademark as a verb, according to the Court, does not automatically mean it has become generic. Elliott's argument was that a trademark should only be used as an adjective, and should it be used as a verb it would lose its source-identifying function and become generic. What the Court highlighted as the key consideration, as set out in Coca-Cola Company v Overland Inc., is "what… customers [were] thinking or whether they had a particular source in mind [for the goods or services in question]". What remains key is the consideration is the customers' inner thought processes regarding the goods or services, irrespective of the trademarks use as, for example, a verb or a noun.

This has been referred to as 'discriminate' and 'indiscriminate' use, where the consumer uses the mark as a verb or otherwise either with consideration of the underlying source or not, i.e. being happy with an alternate product or service being used instead of the namesake. The Court assessed that the main inquiry would be "…whether the primary significance of the word "google" to the relevant public is as a generic name for internet search engines or as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular", not simply has the mark has been used as a verb or not.

The Court then moved on to evidentiary matters. In determining whether the mark in question would have become generic, the claimant is "…required to identify sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the primary significance of the word "google" to the relevant public is as a name for internet search engines generally and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular".

Elliott's evidence largely comprised of consumer surveys and generic use by media and consumers at large. Elliott also produced three expert witnesses, who argued that 'google' is used in a generic sense when it's used as a verb. In most of the evidence the word 'google' had simply been used as a verb, which, as the Court pointed out above, does not in itself make a word generic.

The Court concluded that Elliott had failed to produce sufficient evidence that the relevant public primarily understands the word "google" as a generic name for internet search engines and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular.

The case shows that some battles might not be worth fighting. The evidentiary hurdle that a claim has to climb over in a claim for genericness is quite high, and as this case shows, even the biggest of players might not be as exposed as you think. Trademarks offer a versatile and flexible set of rights, which cannot be thwarted by a simple claim of verb use; however, rightsholders still need to remain vigilant over any claims of genericness from third-parties, especially if the name is of some note.

Source: JDSupra