Trademark law: infringement

Trademark Law II
28 March 2018
Léon Dijkman
IP lawyer, HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER LLP
1

EAU CROCO
2
A predator in the swamp of IP
CoA The Hague 26 January 2016, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2016:1218

CONTENTS OF THE LECTURE
3
 Exclusive rights
 Use in the course of trade
 Types of infringement
 ‘Sub a’
 ‘Sub b’
 ‘Sub c’
 Exhaustion of trademark rights
 Online marketplaces (eBay, Marktplaats, etc.)
 Digital advertising

 A trademark grants the proprietor exclusive use
of the registered mark (art. 9(1) EUTMR)
 Use of identical and confusingly similar signs can
be acted against, provided they are used in the
course of trade (art. 9(2) EUTMR)
 Exclusive rights are obtained only through
registration! (exception: 6bis Paris Convention, see slides of last class)
I registered a trade mark, now
what?
4

USE IN THE COURSE OF TRADE
6
 The exclusive rights of a trade mark may be invoked (in principle) only
against economic operators.

USE IN THE COURSE OF TRADE (ii)
7
Main question: does the public interpret the use of the sign as use in order
to distinguish goods or services?
Examples cited in art. 9 (3) EUTMR:
 Affixing the sign to the goods or packaging;
 Offering the goods for sale;
 Putting the goods on the market (or stocking them for these purposes);
 Offering/supplying services using the sign;
 Importing/exporting using the sign;
 Use on business paper/advertising.

USE IN THE COURSE OF TRADE (iii)
8
 Asking for a Red Bull, then getting
Monster energy drink?
– Yes
 Refilling, for a third party, empty Red Bull
cans supplied by that third party?
– No (CJEU C-119/10, Red Bull/Winters, para.
37)
 What if you affix the signs yourself?
– Yes

Trademark infringement is always about the use of
a certain sign on certain goods
TM INFRINGEMENT: GENERAL
9

 Three types of infringement (art. 9(2) EUTMR):
A. Use of identical sign for identical goods
B. Use of identical/similar sign for identical/similar goods,
where there exists a likelihood of confusion
C. Use of identical/similar sign for
identical/similar/dissimilar goods, provided the mark (i)
has a reputation and (ii) the use takes unfair
advantage of/is detrimental to reputation of the mark
TM INFRINGEMENT: GENERAL (ii)
10

 Fourth type only in Benelux Code:
D. Use of identical/similar sign for other purposes than
distinguishing goods, if unfair advantage/detriment to
reputation or distinctive character
- E.g.: use in a trade or domain name
TM INFRINGEMENT: GENERAL (iii)
11

TM INFRINGEMENT: SUB A (ii)
13
 Primarily intended for fake and counterfeit
goods
 No need to show risk of confusion!
– Sign must be identical or differences “so insignificant
that they may go unnoticed” (CJEU C-291/00, Arthur et
Felice)
 Infringement not a given: functions of
trademark must be impaired

 Central requirement: risk of confusion
 Mere association insufficient (CJEU C-251/95,
Puma/Sabel)
TM INFRINGEMENT: SUB B
14

“The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally,
taking into account all factors relevant to the
circumstances of the case. That global appreciation of the
visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in
question, must be based on the overall impression given
by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive
and dominant components.”
(CJEU C-251/95, Puma/Sabel)
TM INFRINGEMENT: SUB B (ii)
15

 Assessment of risk of confusion:
– Overall assessment of all relevant circumstances
– Visual, aural and conceptual similarity
– Distinctive and dominant components of the sign
receive emphasis
– Perspective of average consumer (CJEU C-210/96, Gut
Springheide)
– Imperfect recollection of consumer (CJEU C-342/97,
Lloyds/Loints)
– The more similar the goods, the higher the likelihood of
confusion (CJEU C-39/97 Canon/Cannon)
TM INFRINGEMENT: SUB B (iii)
16

 Goods/services similar?
 Relevant public?
Spartan Race/Spartan X
18

 Visual similarity?
 Aural similarity?
 Conceptual similarity?
 Distinctive elements?
Prel. Relief Judge DC The Hague 1 June 2016, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2016:6665
CoA The Hague 30 May 2017, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1533
Spartan Race/Spartan X
19

 Protection for marks with a reputation: for similar
goods (CJEU C-292/00, Davidoff) and dissimilar goods
 Keep in mind freedom of speech issues! (cf. CJEU C-201/13 Deckmyn)
TM INFRINGEMENT: SUB C
20

INFRINGEMENT UNDER (C) – (ii)
21
 Mark has to have a “reputation”: known by a significant part
of the public concerned in a substantial part of the relevant
territory (CJEU C-375/97, Chevy)
 EUTM: Reputation in one EU country may suffice (CJEU C-
301/07, Pago)

2222
 Risk of confusion not required: it is sufficient that the
relevant public establishes a link between the sign and
the mark (CJEU C-408/01 Adidas/Fitnessworld)
 Requirement is detriment to
 (i) reputation (tarnishment) or
 (ii) distinctive character (dilution)
(CJEU C-487/07, L’Oreal/Bellure)
 Relevant circumstances: see CJEU C-252/07, Intel/Intelmark.
TM INFRINGEMENT: SUB C (ii)

 Taking unfair advantage of reputation also within
scope of sub C (CJEU C-487/07 L’Oreal/Bellure)
 Merely taking advantage is insufficient,
competitor must take unfair advantage of
reputation: this includes
free-riding
23
TM INFRINGEMENT: SUB C (iii)

EXHAUSTION (ii)
25
 Once goods are put on the market in the
Community, TM owner can no longer act against
resale (art. 13 EUTMR)
 Exceptions to exhaustion:
– Putting on market in violation of license agreement (CJEU C-59/08,
Copad)
– Condition of goods changed or impaired after being put on the
market (13(2) EUTMR)

ONLINE MARKETPLACES
26
 Infringing goods are sold on online
marketplace, such as eBay. Who
can the TM owner act against?
– Individual seller?
– Marketplace?

 Individual seller if … “owing to their volume, their
frequency or other characteristics the sales made
on such a marketplace go beyond the realms of a
private activity” (CJEU C-234/09, L’oreal/eBay)
 Marketplace if requirements for intermediary
liability are satisfied (Directives 2004/48/EC and 2000/31/EC)
– Promotion of infringing sales; and/or
– Failure to take down infringing offer after notice
ONLINE MARKETPLACES (ii)
27

DIGITAL ADVERTISING (ii)
30
 Metatags: hidden ‘code’ in website
 Use of competitor’s TM as metatag is infringement?
– DC The Hague 20 July 2016, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2016:8293
– CJEU C-657/11, BST/Beelaers

DIGITAL ADVERTISING (iii)
31
 Adwords: search words that will display certain
advertisements
 Use of competitor’s TM as adword allowed?
– If counterfeit goods are sold: clearly no
– If genuine, original goods are sold: generally yes (CJEU C-558/08, Portakabin)

DIGITAL ADVERTISING (iv)
32
 Use of competitor’s TM as adword to indicate own
goods as an alternative to those of the trade mark
owner?
 Allowed if: (i) alternative, no imitation; and (ii) no
suggestion of economic connection; and (iii) does not
cause dilution or tarnishment (marks w/ reputation
only) (CJEU C-236/08, Google/France and C-323/09, Interflora)

USEFUL LEGAL TEXTS
34
 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 200 on the
European Union trade mark, see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1461325727753&uri=CELEX:02009R0207-20160323
 Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (“BCIP”), see:
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBV0001716/2013-10-01
 Unofficial English translation of BCIP: http://ie-
forum.nl/backoffice/uploads/file/IEForum/Andere%20stukken/BCIP%20(transl
ation%20BVIE).pdf

USEFUL LITERATURE
35
 Ch. Gielen c.s., Kort begrip van het intelectuele eigendomsrecht, 11th edition,
Deventer: Kluwer 2014
 T. Cohen Jehoram c.s., Industriële eigendom Deel 2 Merkenrecht, Deventer:
Kluwer 2009. See dissertation at:
http://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/36034/cohenjehoram.pdf?seque
nce=1
 T. Cohen Jehoram, European Trademark Law, Deventer: Kluwer 2010 (English
book)
 Curia website (CJEU case law): http://curia.eu
 IPKat: http://ipkitten.blogspot.nl/
 IE-Forum: http://ie-forum.nl (Dutch)

Trademark law: infringement

More Related Content

Similar to Trademark law: infringement

Recently uploaded

Trademark law: infringement