SUBSTANTIAL VALUE OF A PRODUCT SHAPE AS AN ABSOLUTE GROUND FOR TRADEMARK REFUSAL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/11083Keywords:
značajna vrijednost oblika proizvoda, doktrina estetske funkcionalnosti, apsolutne prepreke za registraciju žiga, oblikovni žigovi, 3D žigoviAbstract
The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of “substantial value rule” as an absolute ground for trademark refusal. Originating from the US “aesthetic functionality doctrine”, the rule took a specific form in the EU. There it was incorporated in Directive (EU) 2015/2436 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks – Article 4 (1) (e) (iii), as well as in Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark - Article 7 (1) (e) (iii). Pursuant to “substantial value rule”, signs consisting exclusively of the shape that gives substantial value to the goods are not to be registered as trademarks or, if registered, are liable to be declared invalid. The objective of the paper is therefore threefold: a) to define the rationale of “substantial value rule”; b) to analyze relevant case law; c) to conclude whether a respective rule shall be abolished (providing its purpose may be achieved by other legal instruments without negative side-effects) or kept in the EU trademark law system. Bearing in mind the rationale of “substantial value rule” (on the one hand) and numerous problems that arise whenever “substantial value rule” is applied in practice (on the other hand) the paper provides guidelines for its appropriate interpretation.
References
Brancusi, L., Trade Marks’ Functionality in EU Law: Expected new Trends after the Louboutin case, European Intellectual Property Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2019, pp. 98–106.
Cornish, W. R.; Llewelyn, D.; Aplin, T., Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th edition, Sweet and Maxwell, London, UK, 2013.
Gangjee, D. S., Paying the Price for Admission: Non-Traditional Marks across Registration and Enforcement, In: I. Calboli & M. Senftleben (ed.), The Protection of non-trdaitional marks: critical perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2018., str. 1–28.
Gielen, C., Substantial Value Rule: How it Came into Being and Why it Should be Abolished, European Intellectual Property Review, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2014, pp. 164–169.
Hughes, J., Cognitive and aesthetic functionality in trademark law, Loyola – LA Legal studies paper, no. 2015–07, 2015, pp. 100–156.
Karjala, D., Sustainability and Intellectual Property Rights in Traditional Knowledge, Jurimetrics, Vol. 53, 2012, pp. 57–70.
Krpan, P., Nekonvencionalni žigovi, Pravnik, Vol. 48, No. 1 (96), 2014, pp. 63–74.
Kur, A.; Senftleben, M., European Trademark Law – A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2017.
Kur, A., Too common, too splendid or just right? Trademark protection for product shapes in light of CJEU case law, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper Series, Research Paper, no. 14–17, 2014, pp. 1–30.
Kur, A., Too Pretty to Protect? Trade Mark Law and Enigma of Aesthetic Functionality, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper, Research Paper no. 11–16, 2011, pp. 1–22.
Maniatis, S., Whither European trademark law? Arsenal and Davidoff: the creative disorder stage, Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2003, pp. 99–147.
Rački Marinković, A., Apsolutni i relativni razlozi za odbijanje registracije žiga: usporedba nekih aspekata europskog i hrvatskog prava te prakse OHIM-a i DZIV-a, In: R. Matanovac Vučković (ed.), Hrvatsko pravo intelektualnog vlasništva u svjetlu pristupanja Europskoj uniji, Narodne novine i Državni zavod za intelektualno vlasništvo, Zagreb, 2006, pp. 1–52.
Rosati, E., The absolute ground for refusal or invalidity in Article 7 (1) (e) (iii) EUTMR / 4 (1) (e) (iii) EUTMD: in search of the exclusion’s own substantial value, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2020, pp. 103–122.
August Storck KG v OHIM, C-25/05, od 22. lipnja 2006.
Bang & Olufsen A/S v OHIM (Shape of a loudspeaker II), T-508/08, od 6. listopada 2011.
Bang & Olufsen A/S v OHIM, T-460/05, od 10. listopada 2007.
Benetton Group SpA v G-Star International BV, C-371/06, od 20. rujna 2007.
Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v OHIM, C-98/11, od 24. svibnja 2012.
Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV, C-163/16, od 12. lipnja 2017.
Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG v OHIM, C-173/04 P, od 12. siječnja 2006.
Direktiva 89/104 EEZ od 21. prosinca 1988. godine o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica o žigovima, Službeni list EU-a, L 40 (11. veljače 1989.), str. 1.–7.
Direktiva 2008/95/EZ od 22. listopada 2008. godine o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica o žigovima – kodificirana verzija, Službeni list EU-a, L 299/25 (8. studenoga 2008.), str. 149.–157.
Direktiva (EU) 2015/2436 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. prosinca 2015. godine o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica o žigovima, Službeni list EU-a, L 336/1 (23. prosinca 2015.), str. 1.–26.
Gömböc Kutató, Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala, C-237/19, od 23. travnja 2020.
Hauck GmbH & Co. KG v Stokke A/S and Others, C-205/13, od 18. rujna 2014.
Henkel v. OHIM, C-456/01 P i 457/01 P, od 29. travnja 2004.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd., C-299/99, od 18. lipnja 2020.
Lego Juris A/S v. OHIM, C-48/09, od 14. rujna 2009.
Libertel Groep BV protiv Benelux-Merkenbureau, C-104/01, od 6. svibnja 2003.
Linde AG, Winward Industries Inc. i Rado Uhren AG, C-53/01 – C-55/01, od 8. travnja 2003.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v OHIM, C – 97/12, od 15. svibnja 2014.
Mag Instrument Inc. v OHIM, C-136/02 P, od 7. listopada 2004.
Matratzen Concord AG v Hukla Germany SA, C-421/04, od 9. ožujka 2006.
OHIM, Fifth Board of Appeal, Case R 942/2012-5, od 16. siječnja 2013.
OHIM, First Board of Appeal, Case R 497/2005-1, od 22. rujna 2005.
OHIM, Third Board of Appeal, Case R 395/1999-3, od 3. svibnja 2000.
OHIM v Erpo Möbelwerk, C-64/02 P, od 21. listopada 2004.
Procter & Gamble Company v OHIM, C-468/01 P – C-472/01 P, od 29. travnja 2004.
Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, C-273/00, od 12. prosinca 2002.
Savezna Republika Njemačka, Savezni patentni sud (BPatG), predmet Kraftfahrzeugteile, iz 2005. godine.
Savezna Republika Njemačka, Savezni patentni sud (BPatG), predmet Schmuckring, iz 2001. godine.
Savezna Republika Njemačka, Vrhovni sud Savezne Republike Njemačke (BGH), predmet Fronthaube, iz 2008. godine.
Sporazum o trgovinskom aspektima prava intelektualnog vlasništva, objavljen u Službenom listu EU-a, L 336/214 (23. prosinca 1994.), str. 228.–247.
Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin v Svenskt Tenn AB, C 21/18, od 14. ožujka 2019.
Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd. v OHIM, T – 331/10, od 8. svibnja 2012.
UK, Žalbeni sud Engleske i Walesa (civilni odjel), The London Taxi Corporation Ltd (t/a the London Taxy Company) v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd & Anor, od 1. studenoga 2017.
Uniform Trade Mark Act of the Benelux contries (Benelux Merkenwet, BMW), 1975.
Uredba (EU) 2015/2424 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. prosinca 2015. godine o izmjeni Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 207/2009 o žigu Zajednice i Uredbe Komisije (EZ) br. 2868/95 o provedbi Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 40/94 o žigu Zajednice te o stavljanju izvan snage Uredbe Komisije (EZ) br. 2869/95 o pristojbama koje se plaćaju Uredu za usklađivanje na unutarnjem tržištu (žigovi i dizajni), Službeni list EU-a, L 341/21 (24. prosinca 2015.), str. 21.–94.
Uredba (EU) 2017/1001 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 14. lipnja 2017. godine o žigu Europske unije, Službeni list EU-a, L 154/1 (16. lipnja 2017.), str. 1.–99.
Zakon o žigu, Narodne novine, broj 14/2019.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Tea Hasić
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright on the papers published in the Journal, but grant the right of first publication to the Journal. Papers accepted for publication or already published in Pravni vjesnik of the Faculty of Law in Osijek may be published by the author(s) in other publications only with proper notice of its previous publication in Pravni vjesnik.
