All Luxury - CJEU Decides on the Legality of Selective Distribution Agreements for Luxury Goods

Prestige and exclusivity are the cornerstones of luxury goods, and the maintenance of that perception is paramount to both retaining customers and to drawing in new purchasers. As discussed in a previous article, the sale of these goods online can be difficult, especially when considering the retention of the above image. After the Advocate General's opinion in September the question of restricting the sale of luxury goods online has finally landed on the CJEU's desk, who handed down their judgment only last week.

As a brief primer, the case of Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH concerned the sale of luxury cosmetics made by Coty. The company selected distributors for its network, which included a selective distribution agreement that included a provision on the preservation of the brand's luxury image. Akzente was one of these distributors, primarily selling through their store, website and Amazon as a third-party seller. The agreement was amended by Coty sometime after, which stipulated that all internet sales have to be done through an 'electronic shop window' that preserves the luxury image of the goods. Akzente refused to sign this supplement, and Coty took matters to court in order to prohibit the sale of their goods on Amazon.

The matter ended up in the CJEU who had to answer four questions in the proceedings dealing with anti-competitive practices, and whether the selective distribution arrangements are exempt from the anti-competition provisions.

The first question posed to the Court asked, in essence, "…whether Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a selective distribution system for luxury goods designed, primarily, to preserve the luxury image of those goods can comply with that provision". The Article prevents any agreements on undertakings that may affect trade between Member States and have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the EU.

In considering this question, the Court reiterated that selective distribution networks are allowed under Article 101 if the resellers are chosen on the basis of objective criteria of a qualitative nature; the criteria are not applied in a discriminatory fashion; the characteristics of the products necessitate such a network to preserve those characteristics; and the criteria don't go beyond what is necessary. With regards to luxury goods, the Court saw that selective distribution networks may be necessary for luxury goods, where the quality and allure and prestige of those goods is essential and should be protectable. The same applies for mandatory displays in sales to preserve that image.

In answering the first question the Court concluded that "…a selective distribution system for luxury goods designed, primarily, to preserve the luxury image of those goods complies with that provision"; however, they still have to conform to the criteria set out above.

The second question asked "…whether Article 101(1)… must be interpreted as precluding a contractual clause… which prohibits authorised distributors in a selective distribution system for luxury goods designed, primarily, to preserve the luxury image of those goods from using, in a discernible manner, third-party platforms for the online sale of the contract goods". In other words, it is asking whether a selective distribution agreement can prohibit the sale of luxury goods on websites like Amazon.

The same criteria as set out above apply to the lawfulness of the clause in the second question. Should it satisfy them it will not fall foul of Article 101.

The CJEU looked at the clause and its provisions, and concluded that it didn't contravene Article 101. The objective of the requirements on online sales is to preserve the image that it is exclusively associated with the distributor. The aim was therefore legitimate in the light of the protection of the luxury image the goods have. What the prohibition also achieves is to ensure the goods are sold in an environment that corresponds to the qualitative conditions that were agreed between Coty and Akzente. This allows for the supplier to make sure, and enforce, the sale of the goods online and to prevent any harm against the luxury image of the goods.

Luxury is worth the price (Source: HistoryTwins)

The CJEU looked at the clause and its provisions, and concluded that it didn't contravene Article 101. The objective of the requirements on online sales is to preserve the image that it is exclusively associated with the distributor. The aim was therefore legitimate in the light of the protection of the luxury image the goods have. What the prohibition also achieves is to ensure the goods are sold in an environment that corresponds to the qualitative conditions that were agreed between Coty and Akzente. This allows for the supplier to make sure, and enforce, the sale of the goods online and to prevent any harm against the luxury image of the goods.

The Court then moved onto whether the prohibition goes beyond what is necessary for the objective pursued. Due to the prohibition only applying to third-party websites, and not the Internet as a whole, the distributors are still free to sell the goods online, albeit only through a store window. Studies have also shown that the majority of online sales are made through distributors' own websites, leading to very little detriment through the prohibition (although third-party sites are growing in importance). The measure therefore does not go beyond the objective pursued.

The CJEU looked at the clause and its provisions, and concluded that it didn't contravene Article 101. The objective of the requirements on online sales is to preserve the image that it is exclusively associated with the distributor. The aim was therefore legitimate in the light of the protection of the luxury image the goods have. What the prohibition also achieves is to ensure the goods are sold in an environment that corresponds to the qualitative conditions that were agreed between Coty and Akzente. This allows for the supplier to make sure, and enforce, the sale of the goods online and to prevent any harm against the luxury image of the goods.

The answer to the question was set out as "…Article 101(1)… must be interpreted as not precluding a contractual clause… which prohibits authorised distributors in a selective distribution system for luxury goods designed, primarily, to preserve the luxury image of those goods from using, in a discernible manner, third-party platforms for the internet sale of the contract goods, on condition that that clause has the objective of preserving the luxury image of those goods, that it is laid down uniformly and not applied in a discriminatory fashion, and that it is proportionate in the light of the objective pursued, these being matters to be determined by the referring court".

The Court considered the third and fourth questions together, which asked, in essence "…whether Article 4 of Regulation No 330/2010 must be interpreted as meaning that… the prohibition imposed on the members of a selective distribution system for luxury goods, which operate as distributors at the retail level of trade, of making use, in a discernible manner, of third-party undertakings for internet sales constitutes a restriction of their customers, within the meaning of Article 4(b)... or a restriction of passive sales to end users, within the meaning of Article 4(c)".

If the distribution agreement would restrict who the distributor can sell the goods to or authorised passive sales to end users, it will not be caught by the Article 2 exemption and treated as unlawful.

The Court quickly observed that the agreement does not prohibit the use of the internet as a means of marketing the goods, nor circumscribe who can buy the goods online. Additionally, the agreement allows distributors to advertise the goods online, and considering all of the above, there is no restriction on distributors as to who the goods can be sold to or passive sales.

In short, the third and fourth questions were answered as "…the prohibition imposed on the members of a selective distribution system for luxury goods, which operate as distributors at the retail level of trade, of making use, in a discernible manner, of third-party undertakings for internet sales does not constitute a restriction of customers… or a restriction of passive sales to end users".

The case is quite an important one, which considers issues that will often pertain to the sale of luxury goods, particularly on the Internet. Clearly the image of the goods is protectable through contractual arrangements, including through some restrictions on those sales, and both distributors and brand owners should heed the decision and ensure their contracts are up to snuff.

Source: IPKat

Plainly Winning - Australia Wins Plain Packaging Challenge at the WTO

Plain packaging seems to be a nigh inevitability in the current legislative climate, especially with countries pushing for stricter laws surrounding cigarettes and their marketing. This blog has discussed the challenge against the Australian Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 in the WTO and in Asia (discussed here and here) by a number of countries, but the conclusion of those disputes has been coming for some years now. While similar initiatives have been introduced in a number of countries, including the UK, the disputes seem to have put a damper on those efforts, if nothing at least for the duration of the cases.

The WTO dispute (including others made by other nations) concerns the TPP Act 2011, which introduced measures to standardize tobacco product packaging, including changing the color to a boring olive green, and prominently displaying graphic warning labels. The arguments presented against the legislation were that it presents a technical barrier to trade under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (Articles 2.1 and 2.2), and infringing various provisions under the TRIPS Agreement, for example giving other Member countries more or less favorable treatment (Article 3.1) or creating an obstacle for the registration of a trademark due to the nature of the goods it is used for (Article 15.4). Finally, the Act allegedly gives imported products less favorable treatment under The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Article 3.4).

As discussed above, while the judgment hasn't been released yet, sources at the WTO have claimed that the WTO has sided with the Australian government's argument on the measure qualifying as a legitimate public health measure. The restriction of branding, therefore, does not infringe the above Agreements, and is appropriate for the aim sought by the legislation.

The details of the case will be discussed more when the decision is released in July, but it still remains an important signpost in the development of plain packaging legislation worldwide.

Without a doubt, the tobacco companies and the relevant countries will appeal the decision, as has been indicated by British American Tobacco.

'Quitting clearly had no benefits', Alan thought

According to the WTO, a barrier to trade would amount to, for example, any methods that would give domestically produced goods an unfair advantage. Additionally, countries have the prerogative to "...adopt the standards they consider appropriate — for example, for human, animal or plant life or health, for the protection of the environment or to meet other consumer interests". Even if the standards are brought in to protect these legitimate aims, they still cannot be "...applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on international trade".

This writer does not claim to be a master of international trade law, but would argue that the application of a plain packaging standard to protect human life and health would not amount to a barrier on trade, as the standard would apply equally to Australian and foreign tobacco producers, and is clearly not an arbitrary or unjustifiable measure to do so. Plain packaging evens the playing field for all tobacco producers, but also seeks to stop the starting of a smoking habit, lowering the amounts of tobacco products used in that particular country (Australia showing a drop of 6% in smoking rates in adults, and the reduction of sales of tobacco products by nearly $500 million after the law's introduction).

In the end, plain packaging will be a hard fought, long battle, which will clearly go on for years to come. The tobacco industry is also in a state of transition from the old business models to new ones, including vape products, but the core remains the same and the brands equally valuable to that business. This writer is wholly for plain packaging, but its impact on IP will be a milestone for not just tobacco, but for other possibly harmful products in the future.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

A Piece of Humble Pie - Design of Apple Pie Not Registrable, Says US Court of Appeals

What is more enjoyable than a case involving food and an intellectual property law? This writer for one will freely admit his love of both, and any case that presents a scenario mixing the two is a delight. Many recent cases have touched on the design of various food items, including the recent Kit Kat litigation in the UK (discussed more here) and in the CJEU (discussed more here), and as manufacturers and makers of edible goods compete for marketshare, the shape of these items can become quite valuable and important. One still has to distinguish this from recipes (discussed more here), and while they are much less likely to be protectable, shapes are a different matter altogether. With that said, could you protect the shape of a dish, specifically a pie? The Court of Appeals in the US aimed to answer this question only late last month.

The case of Sweet Sweet Desserts, Inc. v Chudleigh's Ltd dealt with a design of a single-serving apple pie, meaning a whole pie meant for one person in a neat, convenient package. This particular food item was the creation of Scott Chudleigh, the owner of an apple farm and bakery in Ontario, Canada. It consisted of a ball-like shape, with upward facing, spiralling petals that overlap each other, encasing the apple pie filling within. He subsequently filed for a trademark in 2005 (US trademark 2262208, which includes an illustration of the design). The pies where distributed to various companies for resale, including a discussion with Applebee's in the US for the sale of the item in their restaurants, but the negotiations fell through. In 2010 Applebee's approached Sweet Sweet Desserts to create a single-serving apple pie, much akin to the idea conjured by Mr Chudleigh, who developed an "apple pocket" with a pie-like bottom and an overlapping spiral top design, leaving a gap in the top (subjectively quite similar to Chudleigh's apple pie design).  After launch Mr Chudleigh noticed, through online advertising, the similarities of the two designs, and took Sweet Sweet Desserts to court over trademark and trade dress infringement.

Little Jimmy's "floor pie" was received with less enthusiasm

The first issue dealt with by Justice Shwartz was whether Chudleigh's design was merely functional, and thus not registrable as a trademark. 15 USC section 1125(a) prohibits the use of any marks that would deceive a consumer as to the origin of goods or services, potentially including the aforementioned design, provided the design is not only functional and thus not a designation of such an origin. Justice Shwartz further set out that "...in general terms, a product feature is functional, and cannot serve as a trademark, if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article". Even if a feature were deemed to not be functional, a court can still find against the owner should the mark put competitors "...at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage", therefore potentially restricting competition in the field (i.e. if a design or shape of a mark is essential or near-essential to the creation or presentation of certain types of goods).

What the Court found was that the design was indeed functional, as "...the shape of the dough is essential to the purpose of an effective single-serving fruit pie, and affects its cost and quality". Arguably this is correct, since the folding of the dough in order to seal the filling into the pie does just that, and does not, at least for the most part, act as purely decorative, clearly designating an origin for those particular pies. Mr Chudleigh admitted to this fact somewhat, stating that the use of the dough in that particular shape was designed to save on cost and to fill a particular market need for single-serving pies. Additionally, the number of 'petals' in the pies would be predominantly as a functional aspect, giving the best results for holding in the filling and baking, again enforcing a lack of decorative purpose and pure functionality. The Court therefore determined the design to be functional, and revoked Mr Chudleigh's registration.

The final claim dealt with by the court was Sweet Sweet Desserts' claim for tortious interference with their relationship with Applebee's through Mr Chudleigh's assertion of his alleged rights (being very similar to groundless threats in the UK). Justice Shwartz quickly ruled against this claim, determining that Mr Chudleigh's cease-and-desist letter, sent to Applebee's after his discovery of the Sweet Sweet Desserts' apple pie, since the letter was an "...objectively plausible effort to enforce rights" and not a sham to extract a settlement from the parties prior to a full case. Even though he failed in the case at hand, losing his rights in the design, does not take away from his legitimate belief at the time as to the existence of these rights. The Court ultimately allowed the application for summary judgment for both parties.

The case, albeit not ground-breaking in any way, is a curious predicament for the law, especially considering the uncertain world of food-related trademarks and rights. This writer would fully agree with the Court, since the design of the pie was purely functional, and any decorative or indicative purposes were either incidental or minor in the grand scheme of things. It is unclear whether Mr Chudleigh could have succeeded in a claim for passing off in the UK, and this writer sure does have his doubts as to this, but the idea would seem to be a novel one as a hypothetical.

Source: JDSupra

Taking a Break - Kit Kat Decision Issued by ECJ

For all lovers of confectionery goods the name Kit Kat will undoubtedly be a familiar one, even without its highly memorably slogan. The iconic British chocolate bar has been around since the 1930s, and above all else what many will remember is its shape, comprising of five individual chocolate covered wafer 'fingers' connected at the base by a lawyer of chocolate. As such shapes can be protected through intellectual property law, but whether Kit Kat's design is truly distinctive enough to be protected as a trade mark, has been a contested question here in the UK for several years, ultimately being referred to the European Court of Justice by Justice Arnold nearly two years ago in Société Des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [UK High Court of Chancery]. As a result the ECJ handed down its judgment in September this year.

The case of Société Des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [European Court of Justice] dealt with an application for a trademark by Nestle for a three-dimensional representation of the Kit Kat bar, omitting the embossed words "Kit Kat" from the top of the chocolate bar's individual fingers. After the application's publication Cadbury submitted an opposition against its registration, arguing a lack of distinctive character, initially having the mark rejected by the UK Intellectual Property Office, ending in Nestle's appeal to the UK High Court.

Justice Arnold submitted three questions to the ECJ prior to his later judgment applying the Court's consideration.

The ECJ started by answering the second question posed by Justice Arnold. What was asked was seen as "...whether Article 3(1)(e) of Directive 2008/95... must be interpreted as precluding registration as a trade mark of a sign consisting of the shape of goods where that shape contains three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result".

After a very brief consideration of precedent, especially relating to the prevention of any registration monopolizing a technical solution or functional characteristics, the Court determined that "...Article 3(1)(e)... must be interpreted as precluding registration as a trade mark of a sign consisting of the shape of goods where that shape contains three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result, provided, however, that at least one of the grounds for refusal of registration set out in that provision is fully applicable to the shape at issue". What remains key is the refusal of registration based on a single ground under Article 3(1)(e), even if, predominantly, the shape does not fall under all of the grounds. Public interest in the strict enforcement of the grounds of refusal was important in the Court's view, as a contrary position would allow for the monopolization of the very subject matter the Article seeks to disallow. What is uncertain is how this applies to a shape as whole and its respective components. Would a shape be negated as a whole if it contains a part that would fall under the grounds (negating the registrability of the whole design)? Arguably, this would be the case, but the decision leaves this unclear.

Terry's take on Halloween was more diabetes inducing

The Court then moved on to the third question, which it saw as asking "...whether Article 3(1)(e)(ii)... under which registration may be refused of signs consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, must be interpreted as referring only to the manner in which the goods at issue function or whether it also applies to the manner in which they are manufactured". As the wording of the sub-section does not discuss the manner of manufacture for the goods, the Court had to decide whether it implicitly does so. They quickly decided against this, setting out that "...that Article 3(1)(e)(ii)... must be interpreted as referring only to the manner in which the goods at issue function and it does not apply to the manner in which the goods are manufactured". The inclusion of manufacturing methods, in this writer's mind, would encroach onto the territory of patents, and how a product is made does not designate its origin; the primary function of trademarks.

Finally, the Court proceeded to question one, which was set out as "...whether an applicant to register a trade mark which has acquired a distinctive character following the use which has been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3)... must prove that the relevant class of persons perceive the goods or services designated exclusively by that mark, as opposed to any other mark which might also be present, as originating from a particular company, or whether it is sufficient for that applicant to prove that a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons recognise that mark and associate it with the applicant’s goods".

Again, considering precedent in brevity, the Court saw that "...in order to obtain registration of a trade mark which has acquired a distinctive character following the use which has been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3)... regardless of whether that use is as part of another registered trade mark or in conjunction with such a mark, the trade mark applicant must prove that the relevant class of persons perceive the goods or services designated exclusively by the mark applied for, as opposed to any other mark which might also be present, as originating from a particular company". What the question therefore requires is that the proprietor of the mark has to prove that the relevant class of people perceive their mark, in this case "Kit Kat", to only originate from them and not other proprietors selling similar goods, even if the goods contain other registered trademarks (or a design, in this case). The onus would be on Nestle to show that the shape of the chocolate bar, regardless of the inclusion of the words "Kit Kat", would be indicative of the source of the bar by itself (i.e. a distinctive feature). The Court did omit Justice Arnold's question on reliance on the mark, focusing on their 'perception' and 'recognition' of the mark. Arguably reliance does not necessarily follow the two, but this writer thinks, in the Court's mind, their intention is to include reliance through perception, as seeing and knowing a mark in conjunction with another would still carry some weight in the purchase decision, effectively creating a level of 'reliance'.

The case has since been referred back to the High Court for ultimate decision, but this writer thinks, based on earlier considerations, that the shape of the Kit Kat bar might not be enough to distinguish it from other similar ones to allow for the registration of the mark. The ECJ's answers to the questions seemed unsurprising, however leaving many things uncertain or somewhat unanswered, but give more nuanced guidance, which is never too abundant in today's legal sphere. How the case will be applied in the future is uncertain, but hopefully this application will manifest even more clarity as a result.

Source: IPKat

Impulsive Decisions - Reputation of a Trademark in Europe

In the world of trademarks the goodwill, or in other words reputation, of goods and services is paramount for their protection and enjoyment in a relevant territory. As commerce has become more and more global, with other territories seeing goods or services after their introduction to others, jurisdictional issues are even more poignant and relevant, providing a judicial headache for many attempting to benefit from those limitations (for example, in the recent NOW TV case, discussed here). Community Trade Marks, or CTMs for short, are registered as European-wide trademarks, but the goods or services' introduction to all of the Member States can sometimes differ, and potentially leave their registration open to challenge. Could, however, a proprietor prove goodwill in a Member State through use in other Member States, without actually having a commercial presence for that item in the Member State in question? Luckily, the European Court of Justice answered this question over a month ago.

The case of Iron & Smith v Unilever dealt with a national application for the mark "be Impulsive" in Hungary, lodged by Iron & Smith. The application was challenged by Unilever on he basis of their earlier mark "IMPULSE" (CTM 3116233); however they failed to demonstrate goodwill in Hungary, although Unilever had done so, arguably at least, in the UK and Italy.

The Court was asked four questions, the first three of which were distilled down by the Court as "...what conditions, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are to be met in order for a Community mark to be regarded as having a reputation in the European Union, pursuant to Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95".

Extending beyond one's limitations can be a good thing

After a brief consideration of precedent relating to goodwill the Court quickly saw that "...if the reputation of an earlier Community mark is established in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, which may, in some circumstances, coincide with the territory of a single Member State, which does not have to be the State in which the application for the later national mark was filed, it must be held that that mark has a reputation in the European Union". What this means is that you don't have to prove reputation all over Europe, but only in a substantial part of it (how ever that might be defined), in order to establish reputation in any Member State. This is a curious finding, as not all nationals of all Member States are aware of goods or services elsewhere in the Union, and effectively creates goodwill in those that have not, and might never, see those goods or services.

The final remaining question for the Court was also put in very succinct terms: "...in what circumstances Article 4(3)... is applicable if the earlier Community trade mark has already acquired a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, but not with the relevant public in the Member State in which the registration of the later national mark concerned by the opposition has been applied for".

The Court, again, briefly considered earlier decisions, and concluded that "...if the earlier Community trade mark has already acquired a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, but not with the relevant public in the Member State in which registration of the later national mark concerned by the opposition has been applied for, the proprietor of the Community trade mark may benefit from the protection introduced by Article 4(3)... where it is shown that a commercially significant part of that public is familiar with that mark, makes a connection between it and the later national mark, and that there is, taking account of all the relevant factors in the case, either actual and present injury to its mark, for the purposes of that provision or, failing that, a serious risk that such injury may occur in the future". The answer relates heavily to the above, as if goodwill is proved in a significant part of the Union, it is possible to rely on a CTM to invalidate a national mark, provided there is actual or potential damage to the CTM or its owner if the national mark were to be registered.

Overall the decision of the Court seems odd, effectively creating goodwill where none have existed in evidential terms, but aligns itself with earlier precedent. To prove goodwill or reputation in any European Member State one only has to prove it in a 'significant' portion of the European Union, which, to this writer's mind, expands the remit of an unused CTM beyond that for which it is intended (even if the mark is registered in the whole of Europe). Although the Court's rationale aligns itself with earlier decisions, it seems to give rights where no rights existed, potentially even hindering legitimate competition. Nevertheless, this writer will not purport himself to know better than the judges at the Court, but is puzzled by this outcome nonetheless.

Source: IPKat 

Retrospective - Geographical Indicators and Trademarks

As many wine connoisseurs can clearly tell you, there is a vast amount of difference in the origin of a wine, be it from Southern France or Northern Italy, the specific region where the product is produced lends itself to create a nuanced flavor profile only achievable from that particular region. While this writer has no knowledge of such differences (he distinguishes his wines based on color), they illustrate a very important aspect of protection for some products and their geographical origins. Be it Feta cheese, Parmigiano Reggiano, or Scotch whisky, where the products come from is often as important, or at times more important, than the quality of the product, giving each item its 'signature' taste and feel. With this specific taste and feel (at least prima facie) comes a need for protection, lest we allow for the production and sale of Parma ham produced all over the world, clearly therefore not being from Parma at all, potentially deceiving the public as to its origins. That said, does the geographical origin of a product confer a protectable right, and if so, how wide-reaching is the right?

A decision seeking to answer this question was faced by the then-named House of Lords in the UK in the early part of the 21st century in Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Asda Stores Limited and Others. The case concerned the packaging and sale of Parma ham, specifically by Asda (a large chain of UK supermarkets), which had been sliced and packaged in Wiltshere in the UK by Hygrade Foods Ltd. Although the ham had been produced in Parma and subsequently sent to Hygrade, the act of slicing and packaging the meat had occurred in the UK; something that went against the Italian law (accessible here in Italian) protecting Parma ham and its processing specifically, and the sale thereof. Upon identifying this the Parma Ham Association sued Asda and Hygrade for selling the ham.

The law relied upon by the Association is European in origin, specifically European Council Regulation No. 2081/92. Under the Regulation the European Commission can register a name, upon the satisfaction of criteria set out in Article 4 of the Regulation, as a "protected designation of origin" or a "protected geographical indication", which, as explained by the court, are: "...[a] PDO is the name of a place used to describe a product, originating in that place, with characteristics that are due to its particular environment. A PGI is similar to a PDO except that the causal link between the place of origin and the quality of the product may be a matter of reputation rather than verifiable fact". Parma ham was registered as a PDO in 1996. 

Clucky didn't care if it was from Parma or not

After some deliberation by Lord Justices Hoffamn and Scott, the Lords could not answer the question posed to them as to the direct enforceability of the Regulation within Member States' domestic courts, and therefore referred the question to the European Court of Justice for further deliberation: "As a matter of Community law, does [the Regulation]... read with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 and the specification for the PDO “Prosciutto di Parma” create a valid Community right, directly enforceable in the court of a Member State, to restrain the retail sale as “Parma ham” of sliced and packaged ham derived from hams duly exported from Parma in compliance with the conditions of the PDO but which have not been thereafter sliced, packaged and labelled in accordance with the specification?"

The decision of the ECJ was given two years later. The ECJ answered the House of Lords' question after long deliberation of the Regulations application to Member States, and whether a PDO can be enforced against economic operators, including its specification as to slicing and packaging:

"[the Regulation]... must be interpreted as not precluding the use of a protected designation of origin from being subject to the condition that operations such as the slicing and packaging of the product take place in the region of production, where such a condition is laid down in the specification. Where the use of the protected designation of origin ‘Prosciutto di Parma’ for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of Article 29 EC, but may be regarded as justified, and hence compatible with that provision. However, the condition in question cannot be relied on against economic operators, as it was not brought to their attention by adequate publicity in Community legislation."

All in all the Regulation does create an enforceable right through a PDO, but only if the stipulations within it as to specific packaging, slicing or other measures, have to be expressly stated within the registered PDO. Geographical indicators, therefore, act very similarly to trademarks, and do offer an route of enforcement ensuring the quality of the goods themselves within the European Union. Geographical indicators are also protected outside of the EU through a variety of agreements between the EU and other nations, with the addition of agreements between World Trade Organization members. They are by no means an answer to a lack of a trademark, but offer an avenue through which distinct origins (and quality) can be protected, especially when its derived from tradition and strict rules on the above.

Tripping the Trapp - Trademarks in the Third Dimention

Trademarks can be an interesting novelty, especially when it comes to what is actually sought to be protected through trademarks. This ranges from trademarking the color of your football field to the phrase "Let's Get Ready to Rumble!", and only illustrates just how complex and varied trademarks can be, while offering a near perpetual right to protect what you have registered. With this kind of longevity, having a strong trademark, especially in an area where it could benefit you beyond just one product or product line, is incredibly valuable and desired by many (a lengthy legal battle over the color purple is a great example of just how much it can mean to a company). Most of the time though, trademarks are registered as one-dimensional items, which poses the question: could you register a three-dimensional trademark? The European Court of Justice aimed to answer this very question in the latter part of 2014, in a case anticipated by many.

The case in question was Hauck GmbH & Co. KG v Stokke A/S, in which the dispute centered around children's chairs. Peter Opsvik, a co-defendant in the case, had designed a children's chair called "Tripp Trapp", being sold under the Stokke brand since the early 1970s. The chair itself consisted of two L-shaped upright pieces, which contained slots, into which platforms and other pieces could be slotted into, forming the chair. The company sought to protect the highly-regarded chairs, and their look, by lodging a trademark application in 2003 (for example application 003514171). Hauck have also been involved with the production and sale of children's articles, including two chairs, Alpha and Beta. Hauck were subsequently taken to court for trademark infringement, due to the sale and manufacture of its Alpha chair in the German courts (with Stokke winning in the German courts), and also in the Netherlands, culminating in the ECJ some years later.

What the Court of Justice faced was a decision under Directive 89/104/EEC, which governs the registration of certain marks within the EU, as to whether the registered mark would be considered invalid under the Directive.

The first question posed to the Court sought to clarify "[d]oes the ground for refusal or invalidity in [the Directive], namely that [three-dimensional] trade marks may not consist exclusively of a shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves, refer to a shape which is indispensable to the function of the goods, or can it also refer to the presence of one or more substantial functional characteristics of goods which consumers may possibly looks for in the goods of competitors?" The question poses, in more simplistic terms, the conundrum of whether the grounds for refusal would encompass either a three-dimensional shape. which is indispensable to the function of the item and exclusively being only that shape, or would it include the functional shape of the item containing one or more parts that are integral to the function of that item, which consumers find desirable in that type of item.

The Court quickly clarified that, for a shape to be ineligible to be registered, due to the shape resulting from the nature of the goods themselves (Article 3), the shape has to be one which would unduly prevent competitors from using a similar shape, effectively giving a monopoly for similar items; or to put in better terms: "...[the Article's aim is to] prevent trade mark protection from granting its proprietor a monopoly on technical solutions or functional characteristics of a product which a user is likely to seek in the products of competitors".  This also applies to efforts in extending protection through trademarks to subject matters, which should be protected through other means (e.g. patents), or have been exhausted prior to the mark's registration. In the end, the Court poignantly answered the first question: "...[the] directive must be interpreted as meaning that the ground for refusal of registration set out in that provision may apply to a sign which consists exclusively of the shape of a product with one or more essential characteristics which are inherent to the generic function or functions of that product and which consumers may be looking for in the products of competitors"; meaning a trademark cannot claim a monopoly on e.g. adjustable children's chairs, through registering that functional shape as a trademark.

Kids should not be placed on all traps.

The second question referred to the Court necessitated the assessment of whether a registered sign, consisting of several elements adding value to the product itself, much like the changeable pieces of the Tripp Trapp chair. Value does not, by itself, only mean aesthetic qualities, and the distinction between aesthetic and functional can often be blurry as well. The Court saw that the Directive must be interpreted "...as meaning that the ground for refusal of registration set out in that provision may apply to a sign which consists exclusively of the shape of a product with several characteristics each of which may give that product substantial value. The target public’s perception of the shape of that product is only one of the assessment criteria which may be used to determine whether that ground for refusal is applicable". The public's perception of the mark is not the sole deciding factor, as was seen by the Court, but is one of a number of factors, such as ones described by the Attorney General: "...such as the nature of the category of goods concerned, the artistic value of the shape in question, its dissimilarity from other shapes in common use on the market concerned, a substantial price difference in relation to similar products, and the development of a promotion strategy which focuses on accentuating the aesthetic characteristics of the product in question". Whether a mark would be rejected as only adding substantial value to the item is a case-by-case assessment, with no clear deciding criteria as the only guidelines in this question.

Finally, the Court faced its third question, essentially asking whether a mark can be rejected based on a combination of the first and third indent in the Article (questions one and two, respectively, deal with the first and then the third indent). The Court put things bluntly, as, even from a prima facie assessment, the three indents are wholly separate from each other, and thus operate differently in each given argument. If a product fails over one indent, it will fail overall; an assessment based on the two other indents is wholly irrelevant past that point, and failing in more than one indent will not make the invalidity any more serious - the mark will fail either way. In the end the question of whether Stokke's mark will fail is up to the Dutch courts, as the answer has since been sent back for a final decision.

The Directive has been applied to domestic UK legislation, within the Trade Marks Act 1994, and thus is fully relevant within a UK scheme of things. In the United States the protection of three-dimensional marks falls under trade dress (defined in 15 USC 1127), and is more mailable than legislation applying purely to registered trademarks.

Overall the world of 3D marks is interesting, but a question filled with a lot of uncertainties. As the regime is not in place to protect patentable subject matter, or even registerable designs, the provisions serve as a protective means for items falling outside of those regimes. Whether a registrant would be successful depends largely on the mark for which protection is sought for, and is an assessment done on a case-by-case basis, with no clear bright line rules to follow.

Source: JDSupra

Non Parlo Inglese - Australian High Court Takes on Foreign Words as Trademarks

As the world's become evermore global, the mixing of different cultures, conventions and languages is completely inevitable. With this intermingling comes variety and novelty in expression, yet another perspective in this is added confusion and the potential for a well-known foreign brand to be completely overlooked or missed in these new markets with their introduction through immigrants or other people who wish to have access to these goods or services, especially if the mark in question is in a language not commonly used in that new country. This in mind, as trademarks have to distinguish specific goods or services, can a foreign mark achieve this and be considered a trademark, or will the language barrier potentially deter their use in a country? Luckily this matter was recently brought to the Australian High Court, which ultimately decided the fate of foreign marks in Australia, and whether they can inherently distinguish the goods or services provided.

The case in question was Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Modena Trading Pty Ltd, which dealt with the ever-loved subject matter of coffee. The claim dealt with two registered trademarks held by Cantarella Bros, an Italian coffee company: Australian Trademark 829098 "ORO" ('gold' in Italian) and 878231 "CINQUE STELLE" ('five stars' in Italian). Modena, an importer of Italian coffee, used similar marks indicating their coffee products, including both of the marks in question, using them in conjunction with their coffee brands as marks of quality.  Modena argued, after being sued for trademark infringement by Cantarella Bros, that the marks are merely signs of quality and cannot inherently distinguish Cantarella's products from others, and therefore be valid trademarks.

The question hinged largely on the Australian Trade Marks Act 1995, more specifically section 41, under which a trademark has to be "...inherently adapted to distinguish the designated goods ...from the goods ...of other persons". If the mark does not do so, due to it being merely descriptive for example, it will be deemed an invalid mark. The High Court saw that the question which needs to be answered, basing their decision quite heavily on UK precedent, is "...an enquiry into the word's ordinary signification and whether or not it has acquired a secondary meaning". To put things in simpler terms, it is an assessment of what the word means ordinarily, and whether that particular meaning has acquired a secondary meaning, indicating a specific origin or quality of product in relation to a brand of goods or services, even if its ordinary meaning can be said to be descriptive or generic.

After a discussion of relevant precedent, the court formulated its final question regarding foreign marks:

Other languages can be very confusing

"The principles settled by this Court (and the United Kingdom authorities found in this Court to be persuasive) require that a foreign word be examined from the point of view of the possible impairment of the rights of honest traders and from the point of view of the public. It is the "ordinary signification" of the word, in Australia, to persons who will purchase, consume or trade in the goods which permits a conclusion to be drawn as to whether the word contains a "direct reference" to the relevant goods (prima facie not registrable) or makes a "covert and skilful allusion" to the relevant goods (prima facie registrable). When the "other traders" test from Du Cros is applied to a word (other than a geographical name or a surname), the test refers to the legitimate desire of other traders to use a word which is directly descriptive in respect of the same or similar goods. The test does not encompass the desire of other traders to use words which in relation to the goods are allusive or metaphorical. In relation to a word mark, English or foreign, "inherent adaption to distinguish" requires examination of the word itself, in the context of its proposed application to particular goods in Australia".

Effectively what the court is saying, is that the mark has to be examined so it does not impair its use unduly from other traders in a similar field (for example, trademarking the word 'fresh' in relation to bubblegum), and the end assessment is whether the public who will buy and consume that product or service will see a connection between that good or service and the provider. The reference to the goods or services has to be covert and skilful, and not a purely direct usage of that word.

Justices French, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel, in the majority's decision, saw that, on the face of the evidence given that the marks have are not merely descriptive, and Cantarelle got to keep their trademarks. The general public were not seen as understanding the words sufficiently commonly as to convey a signature of quality, rather than an indication of origin, as there are few people in Australia who speak Italian.

To this writer the decision of the Court is an odd one, especially since the marks are, by their definition in Italian, purely descriptive, with the added issue that the marks have been commonly used even before the marks' registration. Nevertheless, the evidence produced was not enough to establish a case for Modena and the common understanding of these words, and it is hard to argue against that.

Source: Lexology

Words in Action - Trademarks as Verbs

This writer, for one, will fully admit to often using very well-known brands as the descriptive term for all such items, for example calling all plasters Band-Aids and all cotton-tipped plastic cleaning things (a technical term, undoubtedly) as Q-Tips, regardless of all of those terms having been, or still being, registered trademarks. While my misstep in potentially diluting these valuable brands in using them in this way can be seen as a small error, or even wholly unnoticeable in the grand scheme of things, it still brings light to an issue all trademark holders face; the potential of losing your mark to genericization. While this topic has been discussed on this very blog before quite extensively, the use of trademarks as verbs specifically has been left a bit in the dark, yet is illustrative of a newer problem technology companies especially will face. Who hasn't said they will 'Google' something, or if they will 'Facebook' their aunt Mary; a grave threat the holders of those particular marks will lose sleep over. One such giant facing a recent challenge to its widely recognized trademark is Google, which posed an interesting question to all trademark holders.

The case in question is Elliot v Google Inc, where the claimant, David Elliot, registered over 760 different domain names combining the word 'Google' and another brand or a famous person, for example googledisney.com, or with generic terms such as googletvnews.com. As you might have guessed, Google has trademarked the term 'Google' in a number of variants; two of which were at issue in the case: US trademark 2884502 and 2806075. These two marks encompass the word 'Google' in several categories, such as web indexes and computer software - promptly leading to Google pursuing the domain names through the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Process (UDRP). In his defense Mr. Elliot asserted that the term 'Google' had become generic and could therefore be used by him (and others) without infringing on Google's marks. The domain names Mr. Elliot had registered were transferred to Google in the UDRP, which prompted Mr. Elliot to pursue the matter further in the US District Court of Arizona.

What Mr. Elliot's argument largely states, and what the court had to assess, was whether the term 'Google' had effectively become ubiquitous with the verb 'googling' - defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "[s]earch[ing] for information about (someone or something) on the Internet using the search engine Google" - rendering it generic rather than distinctive as to Google and/or Google's services. As trademarks need to specifically distinguish the origin of goods or services, becoming a generic verb can be the mark's end.

Stacy was unnerved after 'googling' herself

What the court had to determine was whether the mark's "...primary significance" was that of distinguishing the goods or services from other similar ones. The test was phrased well by Justice Brandeis in Kellogg v National Biscuit: "...the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is not the product but the producer". This is highly important, as if a product is named as the major brand (i.e. if you refer to all plasters as 'Band-Aids') in general terms, the mark loses its status as the seal of origin for that brand, or as stated by Justice O'Scannlain in Filipino Yellow Pages: "...if the primary significance of the trademark is to describe the type of product rather than the producer, the trademark is a generic term and cannot be a valid trademark".

Using a trademark as a verb does not automatically change the primary significance of that mark, and a mark, such as 'Google', can be used for both the designation of an origin for goods and services and as a term describing the searching of information via the search engine - noted by the court in the case. This synecdochian dual-functionality of a mark is wholly valid; however, should the perception of the public change drastically as to the meaning of the word, i.e. if most people would believe and/or use the term "to google" to mean using any search engine online to seek information, then the mark can be determined to be compromised, even with this accepted dual-functionality. This was phrased well by Justice McNamee (the name seems more than appropriate considering the case's subject matter): "It is thus contrary to both the letter and spirit of trademark law to strip a mark of legal protection solely because the mark—cultivated by diligent marketing, enforcement, and quality control—has become so strong and widespread that the public adopts the mark to describe that act of using the class of products or services to which the mark belongs". Arguably this argument holds well, and this writer for one agrees wholeheartedly with the court's view, as the stripping of a mark's distinctive nature the moment it becomes even partially descriptive of a class of products or services would run contrary to the value given by trademarks to brands and their place in a given class.

In the end the action failed, as Mr. Elliot failed to demonstrate how the mark 'Google' had turned generic, as the public still strongly perceived it as part and parcel to the company, not just internet search engines or internet searching at large. The case does bring light an important issue, and often something that the general public will not think about; how our daily use of terminology, especially trademarks, can alter their value. Some examples include 'Xerox' (become a term for all photocopying) and 'Thermos' (used as a term for all heat-retaining drinks containers), which have become generic due to their use as the identifying term in a given class. Due to this the International Trademark Association has even issued guidelines on the proper use of trademarks, which most of us will find potentially excessive, yet is quite important. As can be seen, trademarks are a dangerous beast, especially when they become famous to the point of ubiquity; however for most this risk is quite worth it.

Source: JDSupra

Generic Stuff - Food Packaging and Intellectual Property Law

Remembering back fondly to ones childhood often elicits images of Saturday mornings, watching cartoons and eating cereal poured from colorful cereal boxes. Yet a shadows of this memory is when your parents buy the generic brand, often simply grabbing something from a store shelf thinking it's the brand that their child loves, missing the folly in their ignorance and disappointing their young ones with less flavorful alternatives to their desired sugary morning treats. Thinking back, the disappointment probably was not as palpable as my memory serves me, but this illustrates a point of contention in intellectual property law; how close can you brand your foodstuffs as a generic brand when compared to more popular variants of a given food item? The goodwill and reputation, which many food manufacturers strive for for years, even decades, often seems easily exploited in the sphere of food packaging, yet, at least prima facie, their goodwill and make-up should potentially be well within the sphere of intellectual property law, and therefore quite protectable. The extent of this protection merits further discussion, especially in today's highly competitive world within the shopping jungle of grocery stores.

What prompted this writer's interest in this topic was an article published on the IPKat (originally brought up in an article on Yahoo! News), which discussed the seemingly blatant copying of popular brand items by Aldi in their store brand equivalents, especially in the remit of chips sold in a tubular container, and the mentioned use of similar packaging in cereals. Could Aldi's practices infringe on the brands' rights in the UK or abroad?

Some protection could be offered by copyright, should the packaging contain a work which can be categorized as protectable under the subject matter. Images on packaging, or even more stylistic or intricate designs, could potentially be considered an artistic work under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (and similar laws abroad), and even the writing used on the box (stories, challenges and other items on the back for example). The image has to have no artistic merit to it for it to be protected, but still has to be considered original. Although not the primary avenue for protecting packaging, it can still address the issue at a much shallower level. Arguably most goods will not infringe on copyright, even if they resemble the name brand goods quite a lot, as you would have to make a copy of the work (in simplistic terms), and a mere imitation might not be enough to argue copyright infringement, as a box for foodstuffs would be a long-shot to argue as a form of expression worth protecting.

Trademarks, under the Trademarks Act 1994 (and other similar provisions), are the more 'obvious' choice when it comes to protecting your brands, and certain foodstuffs are covered under the subject matter such as the name "Pringles" or "Froot Loops". Primarily trademarks only assist in the protection of names and logos (such as Captain Rik), and as such are much weaker when the logo, name or other trademark isn't directly copied or a similar variant used. Clearly, should Aldi (or any other business) deviate from those, they would arguably be in the clear.

The darker side of store brands: underpaid mascots

As for design rights, unregistered designs under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988  protect the shape or configuration of a good; i.e. how it looks like form wise, and not in terms of it's 'get-up'. This would be hard for Aldi (or others) to infringe unless a good has a very specific shape to it, such as a triangle box in stead of the typical box design. Under the registered designs regime through the Registered Designs Act 1949, a design can be registered should the appearance in part or as a whole have a specific look to it, including colors, shapes and even textures. The design has to have individual character, which can be simply said to entail something which is unique to that product, and isn't too generic, while also having to be novel. Arguably this is the hurdle where most foodstuff packaging stumbles in registered designs, as it would be nearly impossible to say that merely a certain color scheme or variation thereof would be novel and individual to that particular item. This in mind it is very possible for generic brands to imitate the look of a cereal box, even if the color scheme would be very identifiable for that particular brand.

In the US there is the concept of what is often referred to as 'trade dress', which is protected under 15 USC section 1125, making it quite usable in this instance, although not in a UK context. Under the Act a product can infringe upon the trade dress of another product under certain circumstances: "[If it] is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or... in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities". Arguably this would be very hard to prove, at least prima facie, but should a brand take the time and effort to compile sufficient evidence as to likely confusion and detriment on their end, trade dress could be a useful tool in the area of consumer goods. In the UK an avenue functioning much akin to the US provision above would be passing off (discussed more in depth on this very blog here); however the threshold of proof required is very hard to overcome, especially in an instance where the passing off isn't obvious and clear.

As one can see the world of consumer goods and foodstuffs is a treacherous and difficult area of law in which to wage your battles, and arguably most brand owners will not benefit in fighting this fight. Superior quality, goodwill and marketing will serve a better purpose than paying your lawyers to take on Aldi for its generic items; however as a legal professional it is a bit of a no-no to admit this. One can still appreciate the impact of generic goods and confusion related to them, with studies indicating that consumers are very likely to buy store brand products when they look like the name brand item, and a relatively high percentage of purchases having been mistakes due to the similarities. In the end this would be a matter which would have to be addressed by the legislature, but in a competitive world having choice and a cheaper option can still be good for business and the consumer - just not necessarily the brand owner.

Fake Goods and the Internet - ISPs Face Trademarks

Counterfeit products are big business. Some estimates have put the sale of counterfeit items at a billion dollars in 2013, and anyone who has traveled around mainland Europe has probably seen people sell "authentic" designer bags off pieces of carpet on the street (and who doesn't like purchasing their luxury goods in the great outdoors). The only issue with selling blatantly on the street is the sheer visibility of your transactions, with the added issue of a very limited quantity of items for sale. The more genius members of the business have since moved onto the World Wide Web, pushing their goods to the willing masses on the great waves of the Internet. The law hasn't fully adapted to this change, with a clear difference in the protection of so-called intangible counterfeit goods (piracy etc.) and more physical objects and their intangible attributes such as trademarks. Amidst this uncertainty the protectability of trademarks in this space was brought up in the English courts, and has since been taken on by the UK Court of Appeal.

The case in question was Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, which dealt with the company Richemont, which owns several luxury brands such as Cartier and IWC. As Richemont's goods are highly sought after and quite valuable, six websites were started, aimed at selling and advertising goods using Richemont's trademarks in doing so. The website's donned such fantastic domains as www.cartierloveonline.com and www.iwcwatchtop.com, clearly aimed to confuse and befuddle those who are less savvy on the information super highway. As such Richemont wanted to halt the websites' operations, and approached the courts to impose an injunction to block the websites.

What remains the bigger question in this case is whether such a block is possible under the current law, or as was framed by Justice Arnold: "First, does this Court have jurisdiction to make an order of the kind sought? Secondly, if the Court has jurisdiction, what are the threshold conditions, if any, which must be satisfied if the Court is to make an order? Thirdly, are those conditions satisfied in the present case? Fourthly, if those conditions are satisfied, what are the principles to be applied in deciding whether or not to make such an order? Fifthly, applying those principles, should such orders be made in the present case?"

Under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 the courts can impose an injunction against an Internet service provider; however the issue presented to the court is that under section 97A the courts can impose an injunction only "...where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright". As such there was no issue of copyright infringement in the case, as only Richemont's trademarks had been potentially infringed, and no provision allowing for injunctions in the event of trademarks being infringed exists in the UK.

The Court of Appeal's message to trademark infringers

This lead to some extreme juggling of current laws and whether such an injunction was possible bar an express mention of such a power, although this was meant to have been implemented by the UK under the Information Society Directive. Justice Arnold was faced to examine whether this omission was supplemented under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, through which "[t]he High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so". Agreeing with precedent, Justice Arnold saw that an injunction under section 37 of the 1981 Act would not contravene the Supreme Court Act 1981, allowing for the High Court to afford the injunction as a final decision should it do so.

Justice Arnold discussed the conditions which have to be fulfilled before a court may award the aforementioned injunction: "First, the ISPs must be intermediaries within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 11 [of the IPR Enforcement Directive]. Secondly, either the users and/or the operators of the website must be infringing the claimant's trade marks. Thirdly, the users and/or the operators of the website must use the ISPs' services to do that. Fourthly, the ISPs must have actual knowledge of this. Each of the first three conditions follows from the wording of Article 11 itself.".

Applying the conditions to the case Justice Arnold quickly saw that all of the requirements had been fulfilled. First, British Sky and the other ISPs acting as defendants can be said to be intermediaries within the meaning of the Directive without much question. Second, as Richemont owns the rights to several infringed trademarks in the case, such as Cartier, IWC and Montblanc, used in in the six websites dealt with in the case, the websites clearly infringed on those rights. Third, due to the ISPs role as intermediaries, although are not prima facie used for the infringement directly, because of their integral role in the conveyance of the infringement to Internet uses they are used for the infringement, irrespective of a contractual relation between the infringer and the ISPs. Finally, through evidence it was easy for Richemont to establish that the ISPs did indeed have actual knowledge of this infringement and chose not to act on it. Because of this the requirements are fulfilled, and Justice Arnold could award the injunction.

The case can be said to be very important in a UK perspective, and potentially as an international precedent. Through the decision rights holders have a remedy to address the infringement of their rights outside of just copyrights online, potentially allowing the curbing of counterfeit sales online (although this writer will admit it seems like a long-shot it would be ever fully eradicated). Nevertheless, this remedy can be argued to have been needed, and in the absence of intervention by the legislature, should stand as an avenue for trademark enforcement on the Web.

Source: World Trademark Review

Retrospective - What is a Trademark?

Image and association through that image is a very powerful thing in the success of a product in addition to its sustainability as a strong brand. Trademarks have always aimed to protect that image, functioning as an indicator of certain qualities, value or consistency, giving the customer or client reassurance as to their expectations. Even though arguably self-explanatory or even obvious, what a trademark truly is is often left in the dark to the layman and even some legal practitioners. Trademarks encompass a wide array of possible marks which can be registered in the common law, yet they all share a common purpose in their registration and existence. This purpose was discussed under current EU, and subsequently applying to UK legislation, after the introduction of the EU's very first Directive dealing with trademarks.

The case in question was Canon v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, initially dealt with in the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) and then referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for further clarification in 1998. The case dealt with the mark "CANNON", which was applied for registration by MGM in Germany in relation to films recorded onto cassettes and their subsequent uses in distribution and production for example. MGM's application was then objected to by Canon under the old German Trademark Law (Warenzeichengesetz), arguing that their registered trademark "CANON" would be infringed should MGM be allowed to register the word "CANNON". Initially MGM's mark was rejected by the German Patent Office (Deutsches Patentamt) due to the marks being analogous; however a second examiner at the Patent Office dismissed the initial decision and rejected Canon's opposition for lack of similarity. The case was further appealed to the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht), where the Court rejected Canon's appeal, deciding the two marks were not similar. The case was then ultimately brought to the aforementioned Federal Court of Justice, from where the case was brought to the European Court of Justice.

Tony proudly carried his badge

Under Directive 89/104/EEC the Union sought to unify the Member States' approaches to trademarks, under which the German laws were amended. The Directive also applies to the UK, which enacted the Trade Marks Act 1994 to bring their legislation in-line with the EU regulations. Relating to the case, the Federal Court of Justice referred this question to the European Court of Justice: "May account be taken, when assessing the similarity of the goods or services covered by the two marks, of the distinctive character, in particular the reputation, of the mark with earlier priority (on the date which determines the seniority of the later mark), so that, in particular, likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC must be taken to exist even if the public attributes the goods and/or services to different places of origin?"

The question can be seen in simpler terms: would the judiciary have to take into account the reputation of an earlier existing mark (in this case CANON) when assessing the registerability of a newer mark (in this case CANNON), even if the public would understand the different origins of the two competing items bearing their respectable marks? What the European Court of Justice emphasized was the tenth recital of the Directive, which states that "...the function of [of a registered trademark]... is in particular to guarantee the trade mark as an indication of origin". This, in the Court's decision: "...enabl[es] [the consumer], without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the product or service from others which have another origin", adding that "...it must offer a guarantee that all the goods or services bearing it have originated under the control of a single undertaking which is responsible for their quality". In the Court of Justice's decision, answering the German Federal Court, the earlier mark's reputation has to be taken into account and just the risk of confusion would mean that there is a likelihood of confusion even if the two products have two distinct origins.

A trademark therefore offers a guarantee of quality and origin to the consumer, and has to be protected as such to prevent any confusion to the consumer as to this fact; a badge of origin, as it is often referred to as. Should other marks be allowed to be registered the consumer could be confused, at a quick glance at least. This position has been fully accepted in the UK under the Trade Marks Act 1994, and even in Canada the Canadian Supreme Court in Kirkbi AG v Ritvik Holdings saw that a trademark is "...a symbol of a connection between a source of a product and the product itself"; creating a similar description to what the European Court of Justice did.

As one can clearly see, trademarks offer a unique type of protection and a specific function. The origin of a product or services can be the deciding factor between the consumer purchasing your product rather than the other, and enabling that consumer to fully understand what they are buying is imperative. Trademarks offer this guarantee, protecting both the consumer and the owner of the trademark, making them incredibly valuable to all parties involved.

Retrospective - Intention to Use Trademarks

Often in business it pays off to preempt what might be the next big thing, especially when it comes to names. The right timing can yield quite the monetary results, even if such predatory practices could be argued to linger outside of what is acceptable. To limit the potential hoarding of signs which could be used as trademarks, most common law legislatures have enacted provisions preventing such practices, such as in the United Kingdom and Australia for example. Under such provisions a mark has to be used, or intended to be used, as a trademark for it to be eligible for protection as such. Without proper use, or the compulsion to do so, companies would hoard any and all marks they could, with no intent to use them, only to sue for infringement if others would use that mark even when they are not doing so themselves. Even with the existence of such provisions, the question still remains as to what counts as an intention to use in the absence of actual usage; a question which was subsequently answered in the 1980s.

The case in question is Imperial Group v Philip Morris & Co, decided in the very beginning of the 80s. This concerned the prior Trade Marks Act 1938; however the provision in question is still in the currently in force Trade Marks Act 1994, and would apply equally in relation to the more modern legislation. The case concerned the word "NERIT", which was successfully registered by Philip Morris. Their registration of the word was a result of an unsuccessful attempt to register the word "MERIT" in relation to tobacco products; a mark which was rejected due to it being a laudatory and thus, descriptive word. In their mind the registration of the word "NERIT" would be close enough to be used to enforce against any uses of the word "MERIT" should their competition adopt or use the word in relation to competing products. To further legitimize the mark, Philip Morris sold roughly 1 million cigarettes under the name "NERIT", although had no real interest in using the mark as a legitimate trademark aside from its potential use against anyone using the word "MERIT". Subsequently Imperial Group challenged the mark, having used the word "MERIT" in relation to their cigarettes, and the case finally ended up in the UK Court of Appeals.

Mark loved to dress up as a ghost

In its deliberation the Court of Appeals saw that Philip Morris' mark was merely a ghost mark, with no real intention to be used as a legitimate trademark, and was registered under bad faith, contrary to the Trade Marks Act 1938. For a trademark to be considered legitimate under the legislation it must be used "...in the normal course of trade", and not merely under the guise of use through the manufacture of a small batch in order to legitimize the mark or its use. What the plaintiff had was merely a ghost mark. To further illustrate the intent by the plaintiff in the matter, the Court saw that "[t]hey wanted to treat the word "MERIT" as if they had a copyright interest in it"; which they clearly did not have. The Court of Appeal in the end determined that the word "NERIT" was not registered bona fide, and clearly not used for a legitimate commercial purpose and therefore would not be allowed as a registered trademark.

As one can see the use of trademarks is complex, and predatory registrations are no longer allowed. Registration of ghost marks was common practice before the Imperial Group decision, and clearly the case illustrates a well-needed adjustment from those practices. Should frivolous marks, or unused marks, be allowed to be registered by anyone, their function as a badge of origin could potentially cease to exist, and would only serve as a means to prevent others from trading through legitimate marks. The Imperial Group case has been decided in a multitude of countries, such as Australia, with similar results, clearly showcasing the common law's position in relation to modern trademark law with regards to ghost marks.

Star Jumps and Trademarks

Marketing is an incredibly powerful tool for a brand, and its protection can often be the difference between a successful promotion of your goods, distinguishing them in a favorable way from others. Trademarks offer such protection, with a variety of things being included as possible trademarks in Australia. The issue in a recent dispute over a trademark being sought by Jetstar (a subsidiary of Qantas Airways) was something potentially worth jumping to arms for.

Elephants don't see why you'd ever need to jump

In a recent promotional campaign Jetstar used people doing a star jump as an expression of the joys that travel can give you when using their services when flying to a destination, having started the campaign in 2004. Toyota have been running a campaign featuring a similar jump since the 1980s, and applied for trademarks for over 30 different variations of the star jump in 2012. A few of these applications were contested by Jetstar, who in turn filed several applications for a number of variations of the jump in the last few months. Clearly there was an issue over who has the trademark for the particular jump.

In a recent development Jetstar's representative indicated that they were only concerned with the straight-legged star jump, and would not be concerned with Toyota's bent-knee versions of the jump. With both parties having successfully registered a number of variations, they have equal claim to the trademark should things be litigated. Toyota's history of using it in advertising should work in their favor, however successfully retaining motion marks is a difficult matter. Whether the parties choose to litigate on the matter or opt to settle will remain to be seen, but the situation goes to show just how varied trademarks can be and how important something simple as a jump can be when it comes to a company's image.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald