Use of a Community trade mark in one EU Member State: is it genuine use in the Community?

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. 781-783
Author(s):  
N. Hall
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Genuine Use

scholarly journals Goods in Transit and Intellectual Property Under the EU Law and Caselaw of the Court of Justice

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-104
Author(s):  
Radim Charvát
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
In Transit ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The paper addresses the issue whether customs authorities of Member States are entitled to suspend or detain goods in transit (i.e., products directing from one non- Member State to another non-Member State through the EU) and the evolving case-law of the Court of Justice related to this matter. Prior to the judgment in Philips and Nokia cases, a so-called manufacturing fiction theory was applied by some Member State courts (especially Dutch courts). According to this theory, goods suspended or detained by customs authorities within the EU were considered to be manufactured in the Member State where the custom action took place. In the Philips and Nokia judgments, the Court of Justice rejected this manufacturing fiction theory. But the proposal for amendment to the Regulation on Community trade mark and the proposal of the new Trademark directive, as a part of the trademark reform within the EU, go directly against the ruling in the Philips and Nokia cases and against the Understanding between the EU and India.

Limitations, Defences, and Genuine Use

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Kur ◽  
Martin Senftleben
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Essential Role ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Competing Interests ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Genuine Use ◽  
European Trade ◽  
The Common

As with other intellectual property rights, the exclusive rights of the trade mark proprietor are limited in several respects. At the international level, Article 17 TRIPS offers room for the adoption of ‘limited exceptions’ in domestic legislation (see paragraphs 2.68–2.72). On this basis, Article 14 of the Trade Mark Directive (TMD) and Article 12 of the European Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provide a tool for reconciling the interests of the trade mark owner with competing interests of other traders and the public at large. As explained by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), these provisions, by limiting the effects of the exclusive rights of the trade mark owner, seek ‘to reconcile the fundamental interests of trade mark protection with those of free movement of goods and freedom to provide services in the common market in such a way that trade mark rights are able to fulfil their essential role in the system of undistorted competition which the Treaty seeks to establish and maintain’.

scholarly journals TRADEMARK EXHAUSTION IN EUROPEAN UNION

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (41) ◽  
Author(s):  
Njegoslav Jović
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Restriction ◽  
The Subject ◽  
National Trade

The author analyzes the exhaustion of the trademark in the EuropeanUnion. The subject of the analysis will be the provisions of the primarysources of EU law, the provisions of secondary sources of EU law, as well asthe practice of the European Court of Justice.EU Member States have a national trade mark protection system and at EUlevel there is a regulation establishing a supranational trademark protectionsystem. Parallel existence of these systems and their application in practicemust be harmonized in such a way as to enable the smooth movement of goodsand services in the internal market.The institute is the exhaust of the trademark is a form of legal restriction onthe subjective right of the trademark holder. Since the national exhaustion of thetrademark clears the internal market to the extent that there is a Member State inthe EU, a system of regional exhaustion of the trademark has been introduced.

26. Trade marks—infringement and revocation

2019 ◽  
pp. 446-488
Author(s):  
Paul Torremans
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement ◽  
Indefinite Number ◽  
Genuine Use ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Nature Quality

This chapter discusses the law on trade mark infringement and revocation. Section 10 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 establishes the basic criteria for an infringement action. If a mark is already on the Trade Marks Register, it is an infringement to use the same mark for the same goods or services. The grant of a trade mark lasts initially for 10 years from the date of its registration, and this may be renewed for a seemingly indefinite number of further periods of 10 years thereafter on payment of the appropriate fee. There are four grounds listed in s. 46(1) of the 1994 Act for revocation: (i) five years’ lack of genuine use of the mark in the UK without cause; (ii) a suspension for the same period (after initial use); (iii) the mark has become the common name for the product in question in the trade; and (iv) if the mark has been used in a misleading manner, especially as to the nature, quality, or origin of the goods or services in question.

scholarly journals AMS Neve and Others (C-172/18): Looking for a Greater ‘Degree of Consistency’ Between the Special Jurisdiction Rule for EU Trade Marks and National Trade Marks

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-364
Author(s):  
Lydia Lundstedt
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Electronic Display ◽  
Special Rules ◽  
The Right ◽  
National Trade ◽  
Jurisdiction Rule

Abstract The Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) judgment in AMS Neve and others (C-172/18) clarifies how to interpret the concept ‘the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed or threatened’ in the rule on special jurisdiction in the European Union Trade Mark Regulation. The CJEU held that Art. 125(5) should be interpreted to mean that the right holder may bring an action before an EU trade mark court of the Member State within which the consumers or traders to whom advertising and offers for sale are directed are located, even if the defendant took decisions and steps in another Member State to bring about that electronic display. With this judgment the CJEU introduces a targeting approach, which is something it has declined to do for the corresponding rule in Art. 7(2) Brussels Recast that applies to infringements of national trade marks. While the targeting approach is encouraging, the CJEU will need to clarify it to fulfil the objective of legal certainty. In addition, the CJEU appears to have interpreted Art. 125(5) EUTMR to exclude the Member State of activation. This is in contrast to Art. 7(2) Brussels Recast, which gives a right holder a choice between the Member State of activation and the Member State where the trade mark is registered. The article concludes that there is no justification for these differences in the special rules on jurisdiction applicable to EU trade marks and national trades.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document